Eeg Paradigm Designer

Research Planning Protocol

Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:

1. State the research question -- What specific cognitive process is this EEG paradigm targeting?
2. Justify the method choice -- Why EEG (not fMRI, behavior-only, MEG)? What alternatives were considered?
3. Declare expected outcomes -- Which ERP component(s) do you expect, with what polarity/latency/scalp distribution?
4. Note assumptions and limitations -- What does this paradigm assume? Where could it mislead?
5. Present the plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation before proceeding.

For detailed methodology guidance, see the research-literacy skill.

⚠️ Verification Notice

This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please open an issue.

Core Design Workflow

Step 1: Identify the Target ERP Component

Map the research question to a specific ERP component. The component determines everything else: paradigm type, timing, electrode montage, trial count, and analysis strategy.

Use the Component-Paradigm Quick Reference below or consult references/component-paradigm-map.md for full details.

Component-Paradigm Quick Reference

Step 2: Select and Configure the Paradigm

Once the target component is identified, select the appropriate paradigm class and configure its parameters. See references/component-paradigm-map.md for detailed paradigm specifications per component, and references/timing-parameters.md for timing configurations.

EEG-Specific Timing Constraints

EEG paradigms have stricter timing requirements than behavioral experiments for three reasons a non-specialist would not anticipate:

1. ERP overlap: When stimuli arrive too quickly, the ERP to one stimulus overlaps with the ERP to the next, making components unresolvable. The minimum ISI must be long enough for the slowest ERP component of interest to resolve -- typically >= 1000 ms for fast components (P1, N1) and >= 1500--2000 ms for slow components (N400, P300, P600) (Luck, 2014, Ch. 6).

2. Alpha-band contamination: Rhythmic stimulation near 10 Hz (ISI ~ 100 ms) entrains alpha oscillations, producing steady-state responses that obscure transient ERPs. Avoid ISIs that create stimulus rates in the 8--13 Hz range unless studying SSVEPs (Luck, 2014, Ch. 6).

3. Habituation and refractoriness: Sensory ERPs (P1, N1) are attenuated by repetition. Short ISIs (< 500 ms) produce refractory-period suppression of early components, reducing sensitivity to experimental manipulations. For paradigms targeting P1/N1, use ISIs of >= 1000 ms or jitter ISIs widely (Luck, 2005; Coles & Rugg, 1995).

Jittering

Always jitter the ISI to prevent anticipatory CNV buildup from contaminating the pre-stimulus baseline and to support regression-based overlap correction (e.g., LIMO, unfold). Recommended jitter: +/- 200--500 ms uniform or exponential distribution around the mean ISI (Luck, 2014, Ch. 6; Woldorff, 1993).

Step 3: Determine Trial Counts

Trial counts for EEG must be substantially higher than for behavioral studies because the ERP signal is extracted from noisy single-trial EEG by averaging, and the signal-to-noise ratio improves with the square root of the number of trials.

There is no universal minimum trial count. The required number depends on the interaction of effect magnitude, number of participants, and component-specific noise levels (Boudewyn et al., 2018; Jensen & MacDonald, 2023). The table below provides component-specific starting recommendations for typical effect sizes in well-designed paradigms:

Critical note: These are minimum retained trials after artifact rejection. Plan for 20--30% attrition from artifacts. If you need 40 clean trials, design for at least 50--55 trials per condition (Luck, 2014, Ch. 6).

Step 4: Design the Difference Waveform

ERP components are best isolated using difference waveforms that subtract overlapping activity common to two conditions, leaving only the neural process of interest (Luck, 2014, Ch. 2; Kappenman et al., 2021).

Design principle: For every target component, explicitly define the subtraction that will isolate it.

Warning: The subtraction is only valid if the two conditions are matched on all low-level stimulus properties (luminance, spatial frequency, size, contrast, position) and differ only on the cognitive dimension of interest. Failure to match stimuli is the most common source of confounded ERP results (Luck, 2014, Ch. 2; Kappenman & Luck, 2010).

Step 5: Choose Electrode Montage

The required electrode density depends on the spatial precision needed:

Decision rules (Luck, 2014, Ch. 4; Keil et al., 2014):

• If studying lateralized components (N2pc, LRP, N170 laterality), use >= 64 channels to ensure adequate lateral coverage
• If using average reference, use >= 64 channels to approximate a neutral reference (Luck, 2014, Ch. 5)
• If studying midline-maximal components only (P3b, N400, ERN), 32 channels is adequate with linked-mastoid reference
• If source localization is planned, use >= 128 channels (Keil et al., 2014)

Step 6: Verify Against Common Pitfalls

Before finalizing the paradigm, check for these non-obvious EEG-specific design flaws:

1. Overlapping ERPs from adjacent events: If ISI < the duration of the slowest component, ERPs overlap. For P3b (300--600 ms), this means ISIs under ~1200 ms create overlap. For P600 (500--800+ ms), ISIs under ~1500 ms are problematic. Use the ADJAR procedure or linear modeling (e.g., unfold toolbox) if fast ISIs are required (Woldorff, 1993; Ehinger & Dimigen, 2019).

2. Stimulus confounds masquerading as cognitive ERPs: Differences in luminance, contrast, spatial frequency, size, or retinal position between conditions produce P1/N1 differences that are sensory, not cognitive. Always equate low-level stimulus properties or use difference waveforms that cancel them (Luck, 2014, Ch. 2).

3. Inadequate baselines: If pre-stimulus activity differs between conditions (e.g., from a preceding cue or from CNV buildup during fixed foreperiods), standard baseline correction (-200 to 0 ms) will distort post-stimulus ERP measurements. Use jittered ISIs and verify baseline equivalence (Luck, 2014, Ch. 6; Alday, 2019).

4. Motor confounds with cognitive ERPs: If conditions differ in response requirements (e.g., one condition has button press, the other does not), motor-related ERPs (LRP, readiness potential) contaminate the cognitive ERP. Use conditions with identical motor responses or analyze only stimulus-locked, pre-response windows (Luck, 2014, Ch. 6).

5. Probability confounds in oddball paradigms: In P3b oddball designs, the rare target differs from the frequent standard in both probability and task relevance. To disentangle these, include a rare non-target condition (three-stimulus oddball) or use an equiprobable control (Luck, 2014, Ch. 3; Polich, 2007).

6. Physical-deviance confound in MMN: The standard and deviant stimuli differ in physical features, which can produce differential N1 responses independent of memory-trace mismatch. Use a "many-standards" or "flip-flop" control design where the same physical stimulus serves as both standard and deviant across blocks (Naatanen et al., 2007; Jacobsen & Schroger, 2001).

7. Lateralized eye movements confounding N2pc: Saccades toward the target produce HEOG artifacts that mimic the contralateral negativity of the N2pc. Enforce fixation, reject trials with HEOG deviations > +/- 16 uV (corresponding to ~1 degree eye movement), or use residual HEOG correction (Luck, 2014, Ch. 3; Woodman & Luck, 2003).

8. Insufficient error trials for ERN: Error rate depends on task difficulty. If the task is too easy (< 5% errors), you will not accumulate enough error trials. Titrate difficulty to achieve 10--25% error rate using adaptive procedures or speed-emphasis instructions (Gehring et al., 1993; Olvet & Hajcak, 2009).

9. Confounding component overlap in language ERPs: In sentence paradigms, an apparent N400 reduction may be driven by an overlapping P600 in the same condition, and vice versa. Report and interpret both components; consider component-overlap modeling (Luck, 2014, Ch. 2; Brouwer et al., 2017).

10. High-pass filter artifacts for slow components: If you plan to study CNV, P3b, N400, or P600, ensure the recording system and preprocessing pipeline allow high-pass cutoffs of <= 0.1 Hz. Cutoffs at 0.5 Hz or above create artificial distortions of broad components (Tanner et al., 2015; see erp-analysis skill).

EEG-Specific Additions to Standard Paradigm Design

When adapting a behavioral paradigm for EEG, apply these modifications:

References

• Alday, P. M. (2019). How much baseline correction do we need in ERP research? Brain Topography, 32, 167--174.
• Boudewyn, M. A., Luck, S. J., Farrens, J. L., & Kappenman, E. S. (2018). How many trials does it take to get a significant ERP effect? Psychophysiology, 55(6), e13049.
• Brouwer, H., Crocker, M. W., Venhuizen, N. J., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2017). A neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cognitive Science, 41, 1318--1352.
• Brunia, C. H. M., van Boxtel, G. J. M., & Bocker, K. B. E. (2012). Negative slow waves as indices of anticipation. In S. J. Luck & E. S. Kappenman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of ERP Components. Oxford University Press.
• Coles, M. G. H., & Rugg, M. D. (1995). Event-related brain potentials: An introduction. In M. D. Rugg & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Electrophysiology of Mind. Oxford University Press.
• Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., & Donchin, E. (1988). Detecting early communication: Using measures of movement-related potentials to illuminate human information processing. Biological Psychology, 26, 69--89.
• Duncan, C. C., et al. (2009). Event-related potentials in clinical research: Guidelines for eliciting, recording, and quantifying mismatch negativity, P300, and N400. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120(11), 1883--1908.
• Ehinger, B. V., & Dimigen, O. (2019). Unfold: An integrated toolbox for overlap correction, non-linear modeling, and regression-based EEG analysis. PeerJ, 7, e7838.
• Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G. H., Meyer, D. E., & Donchin, E. (1993). A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science, 4(6), 385--390.
• Jacobsen, T., & Schroger, E. (2001). Is there pre-attentive memory-based comparison of pitch? Psychophysiology, 38(4), 723--727.
• Jensen, K. M., & MacDonald, J. A. (2023). Towards thoughtful planning of ERP studies: How participants, trials, and effect magnitude interact to influence statistical power across seven ERP components. Psychophysiology, 60(7), e14245.
• Kappenman, E. S., & Luck, S. J. (2010). The effects of electrode impedance on data quality and statistical significance in ERP recordings. Psychophysiology, 47(5), 888--904.
• Kappenman, E. S., Farrens, J. L., Zhang, W., Stewart, A. X., & Luck, S. J. (2021). ERP CORE: An open resource for human event-related potential research. NeuroImage, 225, 117465.
• Keil, A., et al. (2014). Committee report: Publication guidelines and recommendations for studies using EEG and MEG. Psychophysiology, 51(1), 1--21.
• Luck, S. J. (2005). Ten simple rules for designing ERP experiments. In T. C. Handy (Ed.), Event-Related Potentials: A Methods Handbook. MIT Press.
• Luck, S. J. (2014). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
• Naatanen, R., Paavilainen, P., Rinne, T., & Alho, K. (2007). The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(12), 2544--2590.
• Norcia, A. M., Appelbaum, L. G., Ales, J. M., Cottereau, B. R., & Rossion, B. (2015). The steady-state visual evoked potential in vision research: A review. Journal of Vision, 15(6), 4.
• Olvet, D. M., & Hajcak, G. (2009). The stability of error-related brain activity with increasing number of trials. Psychophysiology, 46(5), 957--961.
• Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785--806.
• Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128--2148.
• Rossion, B., & Jacques, C. (2008). Does physical interstimulus variance account for early electrophysiological face sensitive responses? NeuroImage, 39(4), 1959--1966.
• Tanner, D., Morgan-Short, K., & Luck, S. J. (2015). How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects. Psychophysiology, 52(8), 997--1009.
• Woldorff, M. G. (1993). Distortion of ERP averages due to overlap from temporally adjacent ERPs: Analysis and correction. Psychophysiology, 30(1), 98--119.
• Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2003). Serial deployment of attention during visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 121--138.

See references/ for detailed component-paradigm mapping and timing parameter tables.