title: [A comparison between group-average and individual evoked potential analysis].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Event-related potentials (ERPs) studies in human subjects have shown inter-individual response variations, probably linked to anatomical and functional brain disparities. The present study was conducted to compare the results obtained by a standard grand-average method and a single subject analysis of VEPs to faces.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fifty-eight channel ERPs (analysis time: 1,024 ms) were recorded in 13 normal volunteers during gender or familiarity judgements on unknown and known faces, as well as on a control task using meaningless patterns. Data were then submitted to individual and group averages.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Three activities were identified by both procedures: a P1/N1 complex, a vertex positive potential (P2 or VPP) associated with a temporal negativity, and a N2 negativity. These peaks displayed a marked inter-individual topographical variability. Regarding the outcome of statistical analyses, a certain number of differences were found: on P1, in which individual analyses revealed a strong effect of experimental conditions, while the grand-average method did not; on VPP, in which grand-average analyses suggested an interaction between experimental conditions, face familiarity and cerebral lateralization, while individual analyses did not; and on N2, in which grand-average data showed a clear lateralization effect, while individual analyses did not. A P3 component (Pz, 250 ms) was also defined in grand-average data, but could not be clearly described in individual data. Statistical analyses on this P3 component were thus only performed on group data and revealed a right lateralization and an interaction between face familiarity and experimental conditions. These findings confirmed the existence of a marked topographical variability of ERPs to face and, therefore, question the validity of grand-average studies. Moreover, these results suggest a better efficiency of individual analyses for studying short and middle-latency peaks, while grand-averages appear to be better suited for studying late components.
authors.affiliation: Unité de neuropsychologie cognitive, université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgique.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Campanella
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Gomez
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Rossion
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Liard
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Debatisse
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Dubois
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Delinte
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Bruyer
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Crommelinck
authors.forename: J M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Guérit
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000465:Algorithms; D001921:Brain / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000502:physiology; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology; D004569:Electroencephalography / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005074:Evoked Potentials, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D005145:Face; D005260:Female; D007839:Functional Laterality; D006801:Humans; D007206:Individuality; D008297:Male; D010775:Photic Stimulation