Advanced Artifact Removal in Neurotechnology: From Foundational Principles to Cutting-Edge AI Applications

Abstract

This comprehensive review examines state-of-the-art artifact removal techniques in neurotechnology signal processing, addressing the critical challenge of distinguishing genuine neural signals from contamination across EEG, ECoG, and intracortical recordings. We explore foundational artifact characterization, methodological innovations spanning traditional signal processing to modern deep learning architectures, optimization strategies for clinical and research applications, and rigorous validation frameworks. Targeting researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, this synthesis of current literature provides both theoretical understanding and practical implementation guidance, with particular emphasis on emerging machine learning approaches that are revolutionizing artifact handling in brain-computer interfaces, neuroprosthetics, and clinical neuroscience.

Understanding Neural Signal Contamination: Sources, Characteristics, and Impact

In the field of neurotechnology signal processing, the accurate distinction between authentic neural activity and artifacts is a foundational challenge. Artifacts, defined as any recorded signals that do not originate from the brain's electrical activity, significantly compromise data integrity and can lead to misinterpretation in both research and clinical applications [1]. The amplitude of electroencephalography (EEG) signals typically ranges from microvolts to tens of microvolts, making them particularly susceptible to contamination from various sources that can be orders of magnitude larger [1]. For instance, ocular artifacts can reach 100–200 µV, vastly exceeding the amplitude of cortical signals [1]. Within the context of advanced artifact removal research, a critical first step involves the systematic classification of these contaminating signals into physiological and non-physiological categories. This classification is not merely academic; it directly informs the selection of appropriate detection and removal algorithms, as the characteristics and origins of these artifacts demand tailored processing strategies [2] [1]. This document provides a detailed framework for understanding these artifact sources, supported by quantitative data, experimental protocols, and visualization tools essential for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working in neurotechnology.

Artifact Classification and Characteristics

Artifacts in neural signals are broadly categorized based on their origin. Physiological artifacts arise from the subject's own biological processes, while non-physiological artifacts (also termed technical artifacts) stem from external sources, instrumentation, or the environment [3] [1]. The following sections delineate these categories in detail.

Physiological Artifacts

Physiological artifacts are generated by the body's electrical or mechanical activities. Their key characteristic is a potential overlap in frequency and topography with genuine neural signals, making them particularly challenging to remove without affecting the signal of interest [3].

Table 1: Characteristics of Common Physiological Artifacts

Artifact Type	Origin	Typical Causes	Time-Domain Signature	Frequency-Domain Signature	Topographical Distribution
Ocular (EOG)	Corneo-retinal dipole (eye) [1]	Blinks, saccades, lateral gaze [1]	Sharp, high-amplitude deflections [1]	Dominant in delta/theta bands (0.5–8 Hz) [1]	Primarily frontal (e.g., Fp1, Fp2) [1]
Muscle (EMG)	Muscle contractions [1]	Jaw clenching, swallowing, talking [1]	High-frequency, burst-like noise [1]	Broadband, dominates beta/gamma (>13 Hz) [1]	Temporal, frontal, and neck regions [3]
Cardiac (ECG/ Pulse)	Electrical activity of the heart [3]	Heartbeat [1]	Rhythmic, spike-like waveforms [1]	Overlaps multiple EEG bands [1]	Central, posterior, or neck-adjacent channels [1]
Respiration	Chest/head movement [1]	Breathing cycles [1]	Slow, rhythmic waveforms [1]	Very low frequency (delta band) [1]	Widespread, often frontal
Perspiration	Sweat gland activity [1]	Heat, stress, long recordings [1]	Very slow baseline drifts [1]	Very low frequency (delta/theta) [1]	Widespread, can short electrodes

Non-Physiological Artifacts

Non-physiological artifacts originate from the recording environment, hardware, or experimental setup. They are often more easily prevented or removed due to their distinct, often non-biological, characteristics [3] [1].

Table 2: Characteristics of Common Non-Physiological Artifacts

Artifact Type	Origin	Typical Causes	Time-Domain Signature	Frequency-Domain Signature	Topographical Distribution
Electrode Pop	Sudden impedance change [1]	Drying gel, cable motion, poor contact [1]	Abrupt, high-amplitude transient [1]	Broadband, non-stationary [1]	Typically isolated to a single channel [1]
Cable Movement	Cable motion/ interference [1]	Tugging cables, subject movement [1]	Sudden deflections or rhythmic drift [1]	Artificial peaks at low/mid frequencies [1]	Can affect multiple channels
AC Power Line	Electromagnetic interference [1]	AC power (50/60 Hz), unshielded cables [1]	Persistent high-frequency oscillation [1]	Sharp peak at 50/60 Hz and harmonics [1]	Global across all channels
Incorrect Reference	Faulty reference electrode [1]	Omitted reference, dried gel [1]	High-amplitude shift across all channels [1]	Abnormally high global power [1]	Global across all channels
Motion Artifact	Head/body movement [4]	Gross motor activity, walking [1]	Large, low-frequency noise bursts [2]	Dominates lower frequencies	Widespread

Quantitative Performance of Artifact Detection Methods

Recent advances in artifact management have demonstrated the efficacy of specialized computational approaches. The following table summarizes performance metrics from contemporary studies, highlighting the advantage of artifact-specific models.

Table 3: Performance Metrics of Modern Artifact Detection Algorithms

Detection Method	Artifact Target	Key Performance Metric	Reported Value	Optimal Parameters	Source Dataset
Deep Lightweight CNN [5]	Eye Movements	ROC AUC	0.975	20s temporal window	TUH EEG Corpus [5]
Deep Lightweight CNN [5]	Muscle Activity	Accuracy	93.2%	5s temporal window	TUH EEG Corpus [5]
Deep Lightweight CNN [5]	Non-Physiological	F1-Score	77.4%	1s temporal window	TUH EEG Corpus [5]
CNN vs. Rule-Based [5]	Various	Avg. F1-Score Improvement	+11.2% to +44.9%	Artifact-specific windows	TUH EEG Corpus [5]
NeuroClean Pipeline [6]	Mixed Artifacts	Classification Accuracy	97% (vs. 74% on raw data)	Motor imagery task	LFP Data [6]
Victor-Purpura Metric [7]	Eye Blink Timing	Music Decoding Accuracy	56% (chance: 25%)	Cost factor (q) tuning	Music Imagery Dataset [7]

Experimental Protocols for Artifact Management

Protocol: Deep Lightweight CNN for Specific Artifact Detection

This protocol is adapted from a study that developed specialized convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for detecting distinct artifact classes, demonstrating significant superiority over traditional rule-based methods [5].

1. Data Acquisition and Preprocessing:

• Source: Utilize the Temple University Hospital (TUH) EEG Corpus or a similar dataset with expert-annotated artifact labels (κ > 0.8 is ideal for reliability) [5].
• Standardization: Resample all recordings to a uniform sampling rate (e.g., 250 Hz). Apply a bandpass filter (e.g., 1–40 Hz) and a notch filter (50/60 Hz) to remove line noise [5].
• Montage & Referencing: Convert signals to a standardized bipolar montage. Apply average referencing to reduce common-mode noise and remove DC offsets [5].
• Normalization: Use global normalization (e.g., RobustScaler) across all channels and timepoints to standardize the input range for stable model training [5].

2. Adaptive Segmentation:

• Segment the continuous EEG into non-overlapping windows. Critically, use different window lengths optimized for specific artifacts: 20s for eye movements, 5s for muscle activity, and 1s for non-physiological artifacts, based on validation performance [5].

3. CNN Model Training:

• Develop and train three distinct CNN systems, each dedicated to one primary artifact class (eye movement, muscle, non-physiological).
• Train the models on a held-out training set, using the annotated artifacts as ground truth labels.
• Compare the performance against standard rule-based clinical detection methods on a separate test set, using metrics such as F1-score, ROC AUC, and accuracy [5].

4. Validation:

• Perform cross-validation and report performance metrics for each artifact-specific model separately. The expected outcome is a significant improvement in F1-score (e.g., +11.2% to +44.9%) over rule-based methods [5].

Protocol: Automated Artifact Removal with NeuroClean Pipeline

This protocol outlines the use of an unsupervised, automated pipeline for conditioning EEG and LFP data, validated via subsequent classification task performance [6].

1. Bandpass Filtering:

• Apply a Butterworth bandpass filter (e.g., 1 Hz to 500 Hz) to reduce very low and high-frequency noise. If the signal sampling rate is below 500 Hz, adjust the upper band accordingly [6].

2. Line Noise Removal:

• Use the ZapLine filter (or similar) to remove power supply noise (e.g., 50/60 Hz) and its harmonics. This method employs spectral and spatial filtering to target line frequencies without broadly affecting the signal [6].

3. Bad Channel Rejection:

• Identify and reject broken or artifact-ridden channels using an iterative algorithm based on standard deviation (SD) features.
• Criteria for rejection include: SD above the 75th percentile, SD below 0.1 µV, or SD above 100 µV. Iterate until no new bad channels are detected or a maximum number of iterations (e.g., 5) is reached [6].

4. Independent Component Analysis (ICA) with Cluster-MARA:

• Perform ICA (e.g., using FastICA) to decompose the signal into statistically independent components.
• Instead of relying on pre-trained models, use the Cluster-MARA algorithm to automatically reject artifactual components. This involves:
  • Extracting features from each component (e.g., spatial range, average log band power in 8-13 Hz).
  • Clustering components based on these features to identify and remove artifact clusters [6].

5. Validation via Classification Task:

• To objectively assess the pipeline's utility without a "ground truth" clean signal, evaluate the cleaned data in a machine learning classification task (e.g., motor imagery).
• The performance (e.g., accuracy of a Multinomial Logistic Regression model) on the cleaned data should show a substantial improvement compared to the raw data (e.g., >97% vs. 74%) [6].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 4: Key Resources for Artifact Management Research

Item Name	Type	Critical Function/Application
TUH EEG Artifact Corpus [5]	Dataset	Provides a large, expert-annotated public dataset for developing and benchmarking artifact detection algorithms.
Standardized Bipolar Montage [5]	Signal Processing Technique	Reduces common-mode noise and standardizes channel configuration across diverse recording setups.
RobustScaler [5]	Normalization Algorithm	Preserves relative amplitude relationships between channels while standardizing input for stable model training.
Independent Component Analysis (ICA) [6] [8]	Blind Source Separation Algorithm	Decomposes multi-channel EEG into independent sources, facilitating the identification and removal of artifactual components.
Cluster-MARA [6]	Machine Learning Classifier	An automated, unsupervised algorithm for rejecting artifactual ICA components without requiring pre-trained models.
Victor-Purpura Spike Train Distance [7]	Metric	Quantifies the dissimilarity between temporal event sequences (e.g., blink times), useful for analyzing artifact timing patterns.
BioSemi Active II System [7]	EEG Hardware	Example of a high-density (64-electrode) research-grade EEG system used for acquiring high-quality data.
BLINKER [7]	Software Tool	A specialized algorithm for the automated detection and extraction of eye-blink times from EEG data or ICA components.
Deacetylasperulosidic Acid	Deacetylasperulosidic Acid, CAS:14259-55-3, MF:C16H22O11, MW:390.34 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Dehydroacetic acid	Dehydroacetic acid, CAS:520-45-6, MF:C8H8O4, MW:168.15 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

In electroencephalography (EEG) and related neurotechnologies, physiological artifacts are signals recorded by the system that do not originate from brain neural activity. These artifacts present a significant challenge for signal processing, particularly in the context of drug development and clinical research, where the accurate interpretation of neural signals is paramount. Contamination from ocular, muscle, and cardiac activity can obscure genuine brain activity, mimic pathological patterns, or introduce confounding variables in experimental data, potentially leading to misdiagnosis or flawed research conclusions [1]. The relaxed constraints of modern wearable EEG systems, which enable monitoring in real-world environments, further amplify these challenges due to factors such as dry electrodes, reduced scalp coverage, and subject mobility [9]. Therefore, the precise identification and removal of these artifacts is a critical step in the neurotechnology signal processing pipeline to ensure data integrity and the reliability of subsequent analyses.

Ocular Artifacts (EOG)

Origin and Characteristics

Ocular artifacts, primarily caused by eye blinks and movements, are among the most common and prominent sources of contamination in EEG signals. The eye acts as an electric dipole due to the charge difference between the cornea (positively charged) and the retina (negatively charged). When the eye moves or the eyelid closes during a blink, this dipole shifts, generating a large electric field disturbance that is measurable on the scalp [1]. The electrooculogram (EOG) signal associated with these activities typically reaches amplitudes of 100–200 µV, often an order of magnitude larger than the underlying neural EEG signals, which are in the microvolt range [1]. This amplitude disparity makes ocular artifacts particularly disruptive.

• Time-Domain Signature: Ocular artifacts manifest as slow, high-amplitude deflections in the EEG signal. They are most prominent over frontal electrodes (e.g., Fp1, Fp2) due to their proximity to the eyes. The morphology of the artifact is directly related to the nature of the eye movement; blinks produce symmetric, broad deflections, while saccades generate sharper, more transient waveforms [1].
• Frequency-Domain Signature: The spectral energy of ocular artifacts is dominant in the low-frequency delta (0.5–4 Hz) and theta (4–8 Hz) bands. This overlap with frequencies of interest for cognitive neuroscience and clinical studies means that uncorrected artifacts can be misinterpreted as genuine slow-wave neural activity [1].

Quantitative Profile of Ocular Artifacts

Table 1: Characteristics of Ocular (EOG) Artifacts

Feature	Specification	Impact on EEG Signal
Primary Origin	Corneo-retinal dipole (eye) [1]	Large amplitude signals swamp neural data.
Typical Causes	Blinks, saccades, lateral gaze [1]	Obscures underlying brain activity.
Amplitude Range	100–200 µV [1]	Can be 10-20x larger than cortical EEG.
Spectral Overlap	Delta (0.5–4 Hz) and Theta (4–8 Hz) bands [1]	Mimics cognitive or pathological slow waves.
Spatial Distribution	Maximal over frontal electrodes (Fp1, Fp2) [1]	Localized contamination, but can spread.

Experimental Protocol for Ocular Artifact Removal

Objective: To effectively identify and remove ocular artifacts from multi-channel EEG data using Independent Component Analysis (ICA), preserving the integrity of the underlying neural signals.

Workflow:

Materials and Reagents:

• Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Ocular Artifact Management

  Item	Function/Description
  EEG System with EOG Reference	A minimum 2-channel setup for recording horizontal and vertical eye movements. Essential for reference-based methods [10].
  Blind Source Separation (BSS) Toolbox	Software implementation (e.g., EEGLAB, MNE-Python) containing algorithms like FastICA for signal decomposition [10].
  High-Pass Filter (Cutoff: 0.5-1 Hz)	Removes very slow drifts, improving the stability and performance of ICA [1].

Procedure:

• Data Acquisition: Record continuous EEG data alongside a dedicated EOG reference channel. The EOG channel is typically placed near the eyes to capture the ocular signal directly.
• Preprocessing: Apply a band-pass filter (e.g., 1.5–40 Hz) to the raw data to remove slow drifts and high-frequency noise. Segment the data into epochs if required by the experimental paradigm [10].
• ICA Decomposition: Use an ICA algorithm (e.g., FastICA) to decompose the preprocessed EEG data into statistically independent components (ICs). Each IC represents a source signal that contributed to the scalp recording.
• Component Identification: Identify ICs corresponding to ocular artifacts. This can be achieved through:
  • Reference Correlation: Calculating the correlation (e.g., using Pearson correlation or the Randomized Dependence Coefficient - RDC) between each IC and the EOG reference channel. Components with high correlation are flagged as artifacts [10].
  • Topographical & Spectral Analysis: Visually inspecting the scalp topography of the IC (should show strong frontal weighting) and its power spectrum (should be dominated by low frequencies) [1].
• Component Removal: Subtract the identified artifact components from the original data matrix.
• Signal Reconstruction: Reconstruct the clean EEG signal from the remaining neural components.
• Validation: Qualitatively inspect the cleaned data for the absence of large frontal deflections corresponding to blinks or eye movements. Quantitatively, calculate the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) improvement in the frontal channels [10].

Muscle Artifacts (EMG)

Origin and Characteristics

Muscle artifacts arise from the electrical activity produced by muscle contractions, known as electromyography (EMG). These artifacts are a major concern in EEG analysis due to their broad spectral characteristics and high amplitude. Even minor contractions of the frontalis, temporalis, or masseter muscles during jaw clenching, swallowing, talking, or frowning can generate significant EMG signals [1]. Unlike the relatively localized and low-frequency ocular artifacts, muscle artifacts are broadband and can affect a wide range of electrodes.

• Time-Domain Signature: EMG artifacts appear as high-frequency, spiky, and irregular activity superimposed on the EEG signal. The amplitude is directly proportional to the strength of the muscle contraction [1].
• Frequency-Domain Signature: The spectral content of EMG is broadband, dominating the beta (13–30 Hz) and gamma (>30 Hz) ranges. This overlap poses a significant challenge for studying high-frequency neural oscillations, which are crucial for understanding cognitive processes and motor functions [1].

Quantitative Profile of Muscle Artifacts

Table 3: Characteristics of Muscle (EMG) Artifacts

Feature	Specification	Impact on EEG Signal
Primary Origin	Muscle fiber contractions (EMG) [1]	Injects high-frequency noise into the signal.
Typical Causes	Jaw clench, swallowing, talking, head movement [1]	Creates widespread, irregular contamination.
Amplitude Range	Variable, can be very high	Obscures genuine brain signals.
Spectral Overlap	Beta (13–30 Hz) and Gamma (>30 Hz) bands [1]	Masks high-frequency cognitive/motor rhythms.
Spatial Distribution	Widespread, often maximal over temporal sites	Can corrupt signals across the scalp.

Experimental Protocol for Muscle Artifact Removal

Objective: To detect and suppress myogenic contamination using advanced signal processing techniques, such as wavelet transforms or deep learning, which are effective for non-stationary, high-frequency noise.

Workflow:

Materials and Reagents:

• Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Muscle Artifact Management

  Item	Function/Description
  Wavelet Toolbox	Software library (e.g., in MATLAB or Python's PyWavelets) for performing multi-resolution signal analysis and thresholding [9].
  Deep Learning Framework	Framework such as TensorFlow or PyTorch for implementing and training models like CNN-LSTM hybrids or Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) [11].
  Curated Dataset	A dataset containing paired contaminated and clean EEG signals for training and validating data-driven models like GANs [11].

Procedure (Wavelet-Based Approach):

• Wavelet Transform: Decompose the raw EEG signal into different frequency sub-bands using a discrete wavelet transform. This decomposition separates the signal into approximation coefficients (low-frequency trends) and detail coefficients (high-frequency information).
• Coefficient Analysis: Identify detail coefficients that correspond to the high-frequency EMG artifact. Apply a thresholding rule (e.g., soft or hard thresholding) to these coefficients to attenuate the artifact power while preserving neural information.
• Inverse Transform: Reconstruct the denoised EEG signal from the thresholded wavelet coefficients using the inverse wavelet transform.

Procedure (Deep Learning Approach):

• Model Selection: Choose a suitable architecture. For example, a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) can be trained where the generator learns to map artifact-contaminated EEG to clean EEG, and the discriminator learns to distinguish between the cleaned and genuine clean signals [11].
• Model Training: Train the model on a dataset where input (contaminated EEG) and target (clean EEG) pairs are available. The model learns the complex, non-linear relationships between artifacts and neural signals.
• Prediction & Removal: Use the trained model to process new, contaminated EEG data and output the cleaned signal.

Cardiac Artifacts (ECG)

Origin and Characteristics

Cardiac artifacts are caused by the electrical activity of the heart, known as the electrocardiogram (ECG), or the ballistocardiogram (BCG) effect in simultaneous EEG-fMRI recordings. The pulsatile movement of blood in the scalp and head with each heartbeat can also create a potential field detectable by EEG electrodes [1]. While usually weaker than ocular or muscle artifacts, their rhythmic nature can be problematic.

• Time-Domain Signature: Cardiac artifacts appear as rhythmic, sharp waveforms (often resembling the QRS complex of an ECG) that recur at the frequency of the subject's heart rate (typically 60-100 beats per minute, or ~1-1.7 Hz). They are often most visible in electrodes close to the neck and on the earlobes [1].
• Frequency-Domain Signature: The artifact overlaps with several EEG bands, including delta and alpha rhythms. Its fundamental frequency and harmonics can create distinct peaks in the power spectrum [10].

Quantitative Profile of Cardiac Artifacts

Table 5: Characteristics of Cardiac (ECG/BCG) Artifacts

Feature	Specification	Impact on EEG Signal
Primary Origin	Heart electrical activity (ECG) or pulse (BCG) [1]	Introduces rhythmic, non-neural signals.
Typical Causes	Heartbeat [1]	Consistent, periodic contamination.
Amplitude Range	Generally low, but variable	Can be mistaken for pathological spikes.
Spectral Overlap	Delta and Alpha bands, with peaks at heart rate [10]	Can be confused with neural oscillations.
Spatial Distribution	Maximal at central/neck-adjacent & ear electrodes [1]	Localized, pulse-synchronous signals.

Experimental Protocol for Cardiac Artifact Removal

Objective: To remove rhythmic cardiac contamination using an ECG reference signal and source separation techniques, ensuring the preservation of concurrent neural oscillations.

Workflow:

Materials and Reagents:

• Table 6: Research Reagent Solutions for Cardiac Artifact Management

  Item	Function/Description
  ECG Sensor	A dedicated sensor (e.g., a finger clip or chest strap) to record a clear cardiac reference signal [10].
  Synchronized Data Acquisition System	A system that can record EEG and ECG signals simultaneously with a shared time clock.
  Event-Related Field (ERF) Analysis Toolbox	Software for analyzing evoked responses, used to validate the quality of the cleaned signal in auditory or sensory paradigms [10].

Procedure:

• Data Acquisition: Record EEG data simultaneously with a dedicated ECG lead to obtain a clear reference of the cardiac cycle.
• Preprocessing: Apply standard band-pass filtering (e.g., 1.5–40 Hz) and epoching to the continuous data.
• ICA Decomposition: Perform ICA on the preprocessed EEG data to separate it into independent components.
• Component Identification: Identify the cardiac artifact component by:
  • Temporal Correlation: Correlating the time course of each IC with the R-peaks of the simultaneously recorded ECG signal. The IC with the highest temporal locking to the cardiac cycle is identified as the artifact component [10].
• Component Removal & Signal Reconstruction: Remove the identified cardiac component and reconstruct the EEG signal from the remaining components.
• Validation: Assess the effectiveness of the removal by inspecting the cleaned data for the absence of pulse-synchronous artifacts. Quantitatively, evaluate the improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of event-related fields (ERFs) or the clarity of auditory evoked potentials [10].

Integrated Analysis and Discussion

The management of physiological artifacts is a non-negotiable prerequisite for robust neurotechnology signal processing, especially in critical applications like drug development where subtle changes in brain activity are monitored. Each major artifact type—ocular, muscular, and cardiac—presents unique spatial, temporal, and spectral signatures, necessitating a tailored approach for its removal [9]. While traditional methods like ICA and wavelet transforms remain pillars in artifact removal pipelines, the field is rapidly evolving. The systematic review by [9] indicates that deep learning approaches are emerging as powerful tools, particularly for complex artifacts like EMG and motion, showing promise for real-time applications in wearable systems.

A critical finding from recent literature is the underutilization of auxiliary sensors, such as Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs), which have significant potential to enhance artifact detection in the ecological conditions typical of wearable EEG use [9]. Furthermore, the performance of artifact removal algorithms is typically assessed using a suite of quantitative metrics, including but not limited to, Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Signal-to-Artifact Ratio (SAR), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and Normalized Mean Square Error (NMSE), which provide objective measures of the quality of the cleaned signal [11]. Future research in neurotechnology artifact removal will likely focus on the development of fully automated, adaptive pipelines that can intelligently identify and remove multiple artifact types without human intervention, thereby increasing the reliability and scalability of brain monitoring in both clinical and real-world settings.

In neurotechnology signal processing, particularly in electroencephalography (EEG) and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), ensuring data integrity is paramount for both research and clinical applications. Technical artifacts originating from non-physiological sources significantly compromise signal quality, leading to misinterpretation of neural data. This document provides detailed application notes and experimental protocols for identifying, characterizing, and mitigating three prevalent technical artifacts: electrode popping, cable movement, and power line interference. This work supports a broader thesis on advanced artifact removal pipelines in neurotechnology, aiming to enhance the reliability of neural signal analysis for drug development and neurological research.

Artifact Characterization and Quantitative Analysis

Technical artifacts exhibit distinct spatial, temporal, and spectral signatures. The table below summarizes the core characteristics of each artifact type for systematic identification [12].

Table 1: Characterization of Key Technical Artifacts in EEG Recordings

Artifact Type	Spatial Distribution	Temporal Signature	Spectral Signature	Primary Cause
Electrode Pop	Highly localized to a single channel [12]	Sudden, discrete DC shift or signal drop-out; signal goes out of range [12]	Broadband, non-rhythmic	Loose electrode or poor skin contact [12]
Cable Movement	Can affect multiple channels on the same cable	Sudden, high-amplitude, non-stereotypical changes in the time domain [12]	Broadband	Triboelectric noise from conductor friction or motion in a magnetic field [12]
Power Line Interference	Widespread, often global across all channels	Frequent, monotonous waves at 50 Hz or 60 Hz [12]	Sharp peak at 50/60 Hz and its harmonics [12]	Environmental electromagnetic interference from mains power [12]

The performance of artifact management strategies is quantified using specific metrics. The following table outlines common assessment parameters and reported performance values from recent research, providing benchmarks for evaluating new methodologies [9].

Table 2: Performance Metrics for Artifact Management Pipelines in Wearable Neurotechnology

Performance Metric	Definition	Typical Benchmark (from literature)	Common Reference Signal
Accuracy	Overall correctness of artifact detection	~71% (when clean signal is available as reference) [9]	Simultaneously recorded clean signal [9]
Selectivity	Ability to correctly identify clean EEG segments	~63% [9]	Physiological brain signal [9]
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) Improvement	Reduction in noise power relative to signal post-processing	Varies by technique and artifact severity	Pre- and post-processing signal segments

Experimental Protocols for Artifact Investigation

Protocol for Inducing and Recording Electrode Popping Artifacts

Objective: To systematically generate and characterize electrode popping artifacts for validating detection algorithms. Materials: EEG acquisition system, standard Ag/AgCl electrodes, conductive paste, scalp phantom or human participant, impedance meter. Methodology:

• Setup: Apply electrodes to the scalp or phantom according to a standard 10-20 system. Ensure all electrodes have low impedance (<5 kΩ).
• Baseline Recording: Record a 5-minute baseline EEG with all electrodes secure.
• Artifact Induction: Gradually loosen a single designated electrode (e.g., C4) to simulate poor contact. This can be done by slightly retracting the electrode or reducing the amount of conductive paste.
• Data Acquisition: Record EEG activity during the induction phase. Continuously monitor impedance values if supported by the amplifier.
• Validation: Mark the timestamps of induced pops. The resulting data should show sudden, large-amplitude deflections localized to the loosened channel, as characterized in Table 1 [12]. Analysis: Apply proposed detection algorithms (e.g., threshold-based outlier detection, kurtosis measures) to the recorded data and compute accuracy and selectivity against the ground truth timestamps.

Protocol for Studying Cable Movement Artifacts

Objective: To investigate the properties of artifacts induced by cable motion under controlled conditions. Materials: Wireless and wired EEG systems, motion platform (or manual controlled movement), IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) sensors (optional but recommended). Methodology:

• Controlled Setup: Fit a participant or mannequin head with a standard EEG cap connected via a wired system.
• Stationary Baseline: Record a 5-minute EEG segment with the participant remaining completely still.
• Motion Paradigm: Execute a series of standardized movements:
  • Slow, repetitive torso rotations.
  • Sudden head turns.
  • Gentle tugging and swaying of the electrode cable bundle.
• Synchronized Monitoring: Synchronize EEG recording with motion tracking data from the IMU attached to the cable or the participant's head.
• Control Condition: Repeat the motion paradigm using a wireless EEG system or a system with actively shielded cables to benchmark the artifact reduction [12]. Analysis: Correlate motion sensor data with EEG signal anomalies. Characterize the amplitude and frequency content of the motion artifacts. Evaluate the effectiveness of motion filters and common average reference techniques in mitigating these artifacts.

Protocol for Mapping Power Line Interference

Objective: To assess the spatial distribution and intensity of power line interference in a lab environment. Materials: EEG system, a phantom head filled with conductive saline, spectrum analyzer (optional). Methodology:

• Environmental Setup: Place the saline phantom in the typical experimental setting.
• Recording: Record "EEG" from the phantom with no active signal source. This captures the ambient electromagnetic noise.
• Spatial Mapping: Systematically move the phantom and/or the acquisition system to different locations in the lab (e.g., near power outlets, far from walls, under lighting) and repeat the recording.
• Spectral Analysis: Perform a Fourier Transform on the recorded data from each location and channel.
• Analysis: Identify and quantify the peak magnitudes at 50/60 Hz and their harmonics. Create a spatial map of the lab indicating high-interference zones. This data is critical for optimizing lab setup. Mitigation Validation: Test the efficacy of hardware solutions (active shielding [12]) and post-processing filters (notch filters, adaptive filtering) using the data collected from high-interference zones.

Visualization of Artifact Identification and Mitigation Workflows

The following diagrams outline logical workflows for identifying artifacts and a generalized signal processing pipeline for their mitigation, as discussed in the protocols and literature.

Artifact Identification Workflow

Diagram 1: A decision-tree workflow for identifying technical artifacts based on their spatial, temporal, and spectral characteristics.

Signal Processing Pipeline

Diagram 2: A modular signal processing pipeline for the detection and selective mitigation of multiple technical artifacts.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details essential materials and software tools for conducting rigorous research on technical artifacts in neurotechnology.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Solutions for Technical Artifact Investigation

Item Name	Function/Application	Specific Usage in Protocol
Active Shielded Cables	Minimizes capacitive coupling and mains interference; reduces triboelectric noise from cable movement [12].	Used in Protocol 3.2 as a control and in Protocol 3.3 as a primary hardware mitigation strategy.
IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) Sensors	Provides quantitative, synchronized motion data for correlating physical movement with cable and motion artifacts.	Critical for Protocol 3.2 to objectively timestamp and quantify movement.
Scalp Phantom (Conductive Saline)	Provides a stable, reproducible "head" model for controlled artifact induction without biological variability.	Used in Protocol 3.3 for mapping environmental power line interference.
Notch Filter	Software or hardware filter designed to suppress a narrow frequency band, specifically the 50/60 Hz power line noise [12].	Applied in Protocol 3.3 and as a standard step in the mitigation pipeline (Diagram 2).
Impedance Meter / Monitoring	Measures electrode-skin contact impedance in real-time. High or fluctuating impedance indicates risk of electrode pops [12].	Used for setup validation in Protocol 3.1 and for diagnosing the cause of pops.
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	A blind source separation algorithm used to isolate and remove artifacts, including some cable movement artifacts, from EEG data [9].	A potential advanced technique for the "Blind Source Separation" module in Diagram 2.
Evodiamine	Evodiamine (EVO)
Phenazine

Artifact Propagation Mechanisms and Volume Conduction Effects

In neurotechnology, the fidelity of neural recordings is paramount for both basic scientific research and clinical applications. The acquisition of these signals, however, is frequently compromised by electrical artifacts introduced during therapeutic or investigative electrical stimulation. These artifacts, which can be several orders of magnitude larger than the neural signals of interest, pose a significant challenge for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), deep brain stimulation (DBS) systems, and other neural prosthetics [13] [14]. The core mechanism underlying the spread of these disruptive signals is volume conduction—the process by which electrical potentials propagate through biological tissues from their source to recording electrodes at a distance [15]. Understanding these propagation mechanisms is the critical first step in developing effective artifact removal strategies, which in turn are essential for advancing closed-loop and bi-directional neurotechnologies.

Quantitative Characterization of Artifacts

The impact of stimulation artifacts is directly measurable, and their characteristics vary significantly depending on the stimulation modality, parameters, and recording setup.

Table 1: Comparative Amplitudes of Neural Signals and Stimulation Artifacts

Signal Type	Typical Amplitude	Relative Scale	Context
Baseline Neural Recordings	110 μV peak-to-peak	1x	Intracortical microelectrode arrays [13]
Intramuscular FES Artifacts	~440 μV	4x baseline	Recorded in motor cortex [13]
Surface FES Artifacts	~19.25 mV	175x baseline	Recorded in motor cortex [13]
ECoG Stimulation Artifacts	Up to ±1,100 μV	N/A	Propagated through cortical tissue [16]
DBS Artifacts	Up to 3 V	1,000,000x LFP	Contaminating μV-range Local Field Potentials [14]

Table 2: Spatial Propagation of Stimulation Artifacts

Stimulation Modality	Recording Modality	Observed Propagation Distance	Key Spatial Characteristic
Subdural ECoG Stimulation	ECoG Grid	4.43 mm to 38.34 mm	Follows electric dipole potential distribution (R² = 0.80 median fit) [16]
sEEG Stimulation	sEEG	Modeled via Finite Element Method (FEM)	Mismatch between measured/simulated potentials modulated by electrode distance [17]
Cortical Microstimulation	Linear Multielectrode Array	Across entire array	Highly consistent artifact waveforms across channels [18]

Mechanisms of Volume Conduction

Volume conduction, often termed "electrical spread," describes the phenomenon where electrical potentials are measured at a distance from their source through a conducting medium [15]. In the context of neural recording, the tissues between the stimulation site and the recording electrode—such as skin, skull, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and brain tissue—form this medium. These tissues possess distinct electrical conductivity properties, which cause the electrical signals to spread, refract, and alter in appearance by the time they reach the recording electrodes [15].

A key concept for understanding artifact propagation is the distinction between near-field and far-field potentials. Near-field potentials are recorded relatively close to their source, while far-field potentials are recorded at a distance and are most relevant to artifacts that propagate to the cortical surface or to distant intracranial locations [15]. Empirical and modeling studies have demonstrated that the spatial distribution of artifacts from cortical stimulation closely follows the potential distribution of an electric dipole [16]. This model provides a powerful framework for predicting the amplitude and spread of artifacts across an electrode array, which is invaluable for both hardware design and signal processing.

Figure 1: Signaling pathway of artifact propagation via volume conduction. Electrical stimulation injects current into biological tissues, creating far-field potentials that propagate to recording electrodes and obscure true neural signals.

Experimental Protocols for Characterization and Removal

Protocol for Characterizing Artifact Propagation

Objective: To empirically map the spatial and temporal characteristics of stimulation artifacts in an ECoG or sEEG setup [16] [17].

• Setup and Subjects: Conduct studies during eloquent cortex mapping procedures in epilepsy patients implanted with subdural ECoG grids or sEEG electrodes. The placement of electrodes is determined solely by clinical needs.
• Stimulation Parameters: Use a clinical cortical stimulator to deliver biphasic square pulse trains. Typical parameters include:
  • Pulse Width: 200-250 μs per phase.
  • Amplitude: 2-12 mA (typically in 2 mA increments).
  • Epoch Duration: 2-5 seconds of stimulation per channel.
  • Configuration: Bipolar stimulation between adjacent electrodes.
• Data Acquisition: Record data continuously throughout the mapping procedure at a sampling rate of at least 512 Hz. Precisely timestamp all stimulation epochs for offline analysis.
• Co-registration: Post-implantation, co-register pre-implantation MRI (or post-explantation MRI) and post-implantation CT images using a non-rigid co-registration toolbox (e.g., Elastix). This step determines the 3D coordinates of each ECoG electrode in reference to the brain anatomy.
• Time-Domain Analysis: Segment data around each stimulation pulse. Characterize artifacts for properties such as phase-locking and "ratcheting" patterns.
• Frequency-Domain Analysis: Compute the power spectral density of the recorded signal during stimulation. Identify broadband power increases and power bursts at the fundamental stimulation frequency and its super-harmonics.
• Spatial Modeling: Fit an electric dipole model to the measured artifact amplitudes across the grid for each stimulation pulse. Evaluate the goodness-of-fit (e.g., R²) to validate the model.

Protocol for Implementing the LRR Artifact Reduction Method

Objective: To reduce stimulation artifacts in intracortical recordings for brain-computer interface applications using the Linear Regression Reference (LRR) method, which outperforms blanking and common average referencing (CAR) [13].

• Neural Data Acquisition: Record from intracortical microelectrode arrays (e.g., 96-channel arrays). Amplify, bandpass filter (0.3 Hz – 7.5 kHz), and digitize (30 kHz) the signals.
• Stimulation Trigger Recording: Record an output trigger signal from the stimulation device to synchronize neural data with stimulation periods.
• LRR Algorithm Application:
  • For each recording channel, define a set of other channels to be used as references.
  • For every time point, create a channel-specific reference signal as a weighted sum of the signals from the reference channels.
  • The weights are computed using linear regression to predict the artifact on the channel of interest based on the reference channels. The underlying assumption is that the highly consistent artifact is shared across channels, while neural signals are more local.
  • Subtract the channel-specific reference signal from the channel of interest signal.
• Performance Validation:
  • Artifact Magnitude: Quantify the peak-to-peak artifact voltage before and after LRR application. LRR has been shown to reduce large surface FES artifacts to less than 10 μV [13].
  • Neural Feature Preservation: Compare standard neural features (e.g., threshold crossings, band power) extracted during non-stimulation and stimulation periods after LRR processing.
  • Decoding Performance: Evaluate the performance of an iBCI decoder (e.g., for continuous grasping) during stimulation periods with and without LRR mitigation. LRR has been shown to recover >90% of normal decoding performance during surface stimulation [13].

Figure 2: LRR method workflow. A channel-specific reference is created for each channel via linear regression and subtracted to remove common artifact components.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Item	Function/Description	Example Use Case
Intracortical Microelectrode Arrays	High-density arrays (e.g., 96-ch) for recording microvolt-scale neural signals.	Recording motor commands in motor cortex for iBCI control [13].
Percutaneous Intramuscular Electrodes	Implanted stimulating electrodes for Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES).	Activating paralyzed limb muscles in a neuroprosthesis [13].
Subdural ECoG Grids/Strips	Electrode grids placed on the cortical surface for recording and stimulation.	Mapping eloquent cortex and characterizing artifact propagation [16].
Stereotactic EEG (sEEG) Electrodes	Multi-lead depth electrodes implanted deep into brain structures.	Recording and stimulating from deep brain regions; validating volume conduction models [17].
Isolated Bio-stimulator	Battery-powered, isolated stimulator (e.g., custom FES unit, clinical cortical stimulator).	Delivering controlled electrical pulses without introducing noise to recording equipment [13] [16].
Finite Element Method (FEM) Software	Computational tool for creating detailed volume conduction models of the head.	Simulating the propagation of electrical potentials through complex biological tissues [17].
Linear Regression Reference (LRR) Algorithm	A software-based artifact removal method that creates channel-specific reference signals.	Removing FES artifacts from iBCI recordings to restore decoding performance [13].
ERAASR Algorithm	"Estimation and Removal of Array Artifacts via Sequential principal components Regression."	Cleaning artifact-corrupted signals on multielectrode arrays to recover underlying spiking activity [18].
Digitoxigenin	Digitoxigenin|Cardenolide Aglycone for Research	High-purity Digitoxigenin, a cardenolide aglycone for research into cardiac mechanisms, cancer, and wound healing. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.
Diniprofylline	Diniprofylline	Diniprofylline (Diprophylline) is a xanthine-based research compound. It is for research use only (RUO) and not for human consumption.

Electroencephalography (EEG) is a foundational tool in clinical neurology, neuroscience research, and brain-computer interface (BCI) development. However, the recorded signals are persistently contaminated by artifacts—unwanted signals of non-neural origin—that threaten the validity of all downstream applications [3] [1]. These artifacts can originate from physiological sources like eye movements and muscle activity, or from non-physiological sources such as electrical interference and electrode issues [3] [1]. Effective artifact removal is therefore not merely a preprocessing step but a critical determinant of data integrity. This Application Note details the impact of artifacts on key applications, provides validated protocols for their removal, and offers a toolkit for researchers to implement these methods effectively.

Artifact Types and Their Specific Impacts on Downstream Applications

Artifacts distort the amplitude and spectral properties of neural signals, with consequences that vary significantly across applications. The table below catalogs major artifact types and their specific interference mechanisms.

Table 1: Artifact Types, Characteristics, and Downstream Impacts

Artifact Type	Origin	Signal Characteristics	Impact on BCI Performance	Impact on Clinical Diagnosis	Impact on Research Validity
Ocular (EOG)	Eye blinks and movements [1]	High-amplitude, low-frequency deflections (<4 Hz) [3] [1]	Masks event-related potentials; corrupts features for low-frequency-based BCIs [3]	Mimics delta/theta activity in frontal lobes; can be misread as abnormal slow waves [1]	Obscures genuine low-frequency cognitive processes (e.g., theta during memory) [3]
Muscle (EMG)	Facial, jaw, neck muscle contractions [1]	Broadband, high-frequency noise (20-300 Hz) [1]	Swamps sensorimotor rhythms (beta/gamma); severely degrades Motor Imagery classification [3] [19]	Obscures pathological high-frequency oscillations (HFOs) in epilepsy; mimics spike-wave complexes [3] [1]	Contaminates high-frequency brain activity associated with cognition (e.g., gamma oscillations) [3]
Cardiac (ECG)	Electrical activity of the heart [3] [1]	Rhythmic, periodic waveform at ~1-1.5 Hz [3]	Introduces periodic noise that can be mistaken for a control signal in slow-paced BCIs	Can be misinterpreted as epileptiform spikes, especially in sleep studies [1]	Can introduce spurious, periodic correlations in functional connectivity analyses
Motion & Electrode Pop	Head movement, poor electrode contact [1]	Abrupt, high-amplitude transients [1]	Causes large, non-stationary noise bursts that crash real-time decoders [1]	High-amplitude spikes can be misclassified as epileptic spikes or seizure onset [1]	Epoch rejection leads to significant data loss, reducing statistical power and introducing bias

Quantitative Performance of Artifact Removal Methodologies

A range of techniques from classical to deep learning has been developed to mitigate artifacts. Their performance, measured by standardized quantitative metrics, is summarized below.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance of Artifact Removal Methodologies

Methodology	Underlying Principle	Reported Performance Metrics	Advantages	Limitations
Regression	Linear subtraction of artifact template from reference channels (EOG/ECG) [3]	Not specified in search results; historically used for ocular artifacts [3]	Simple, computationally efficient [3]	Assumes linearity and stationarity; risks removing neural signals [3]
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	Blind source separation; identifies and removes artifactual components [3] [1]	Most commonly used algorithm; effective for Ocular/EMG artifacts [3]	Powerful for separating non-linear mixtures of sources [3]	Requires manual component inspection; computationally intensive; not real-time [3]
Temporal Signal Space Separation (tSSS)	Spatial filtering based on Maxwell's equations; separates external artifacts [20]	Validated for MEG during Deep Brain Stimulation; enabled >90% pattern classification accuracy comparable to DBS-off data [20]	Highly effective for magnetic and external artifacts in MEG [20]	Specific to MEG systems; requires specialized hardware and software [20]
GAN-LSTM (AnEEG)	Deep learning; generator produces clean EEG, discriminator evaluates fidelity [11]	Lower NMSE/RMSE; higher CC, SNR, and SAR vs. wavelet techniques [11]	Data-driven; can model complex, non-linear artifact types [11]	Requires large datasets for training; risk of over-fitting [11]
Transformer-Based Denoising	Self-attention mechanisms to capture global temporal dependencies [19]	~5-10% accuracy gain in MI decoding; 11.15% RRMSE reduction, 9.81 dB SNR improvement (GCTNet) [19] [11]	Excellent at modeling long-range temporal contexts in EEG [19]	Computationally heavy; quadratically scaling complexity; sparse real-time validation [19]
PARRM	Template-based subtraction using known stimulation period [21]	Exceeds state-of-the-art filters in recovering complex signals without contamination [21]	High-fidelity signal recovery; suitable for closed-loop neuromodulation [21]	Applicable primarily in neurostimulation with a precise periodic artifact [21]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Validating Artifact Removal in Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) with MEG

This protocol, adapted from [20], quantitatively validates that artifact removal salvages neural data without distorting the underlying brain signals.

• Aim: To quantitatively assess the efficacy of tSSS and other preprocessing in recovering neural signals from MEG data contaminated by DBS artifacts.
• Experimental Setup:
  • Subjects: 8 patients with bilateral DBS implants for Parkinson's disease and 9 healthy controls [20].
  • Task: Visual categorization task. This paradigm is selected because object recognition is unaffected by DBS, ensuring any differences between DBS-on and DBS-off conditions are due to artifacts, not neural changes [20].
  • Conditions: MEG recordings are performed with the DBS stimulator ON and OFF.
• Data Acquisition:
  • Record MEG data using a whole-head system (e.g., a 306-channel Elekta Neuromag system).
  • Stimulation parameters (e.g., target: STN/GPi, frequency, pulse width, amplitude) must be documented for each patient [20].
• Preprocessing and Artifact Removal:
  • Apply tSSS: Use Temporal Signal Space Separation to suppress external magnetic interferences, including those from the DBS implant and extension wires [20].
  • Band-Pass Filter: Filter data to a relevant frequency band for the task (e.g., 1-40 Hz).
  • Dimensionality Reduction: Apply Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to denoise and reduce data dimensionality [20].
• Validation via Machine Learning:
  • Feature Extraction: Use the spatiotemporal pattern of evoked neural fields across MEG sensors on a single-trial basis [20].
  • Train Classifiers: Train a multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) classifier to distinguish between different visual object categories.
    • Train and test on DBS-off data.
    • Train and test on DBS-on data (after artifact removal).
  • Cross-Condition Testing:
    • Train a classifier on DBS-on data and test it on DBS-off data.
    • Train a classifier on DBS-off data and test it on DBS-on data.
• Success Metrics:
  • High Classification Accuracy in within-condition tests (DBS-on vs. DBS-off) demonstrates that neural data can be salvaged after artifact removal.
  • Comparable Cross-Condition Classification Accuracy indicates that the spatiotemporal patterns of neural activity are similar between DBS-on and DBS-off, validating that the artifact removal process does not distort the underlying neural signal [20].

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for validating artifact removal in DBS with MEG.

Protocol 2: A Deep Learning Pipeline for EEG Denoising and Motor Imagery Decoding

This protocol leverages a state-of-the-art transformer-based deep learning model to denoise EEG and decode motor imagery (MI) tasks, a core BCI application.

• Aim: To remove artifacts and classify MI tasks from raw, multi-channel EEG signals using a unified deep-learning framework.
• Data Preparation:
  • Dataset: Use a public benchmark dataset like BCI Competition IV 2a (4-class MI) [19] [22].
  • Partitioning: Employ a strict subject-agnostic, cross-validation scheme with fixed training and testing partitions to prevent data leakage and ensure generalizability [19].
  • Preprocessing: Apply a band-pass filter (e.g., 4-38 Hz). Decimate the data to a uniform sampling rate (e.g., 250 Hz). Normalize the data per channel.
• Model Architecture: GCTNet (GAN-guided CNN-Transformer Network) [11]:
  • Generator: The core denoising component. It takes raw, contaminated EEG as input and outputs clean EEG.
    • Parallel CNN Blocks: Capture local temporal and spatial patterns [11].
    • Transformer Blocks: Use self-attention to model global, long-range temporal dependencies in the signal, which is crucial for identifying distributed artifact features [19] [11].
  • Discriminator: A 1D convolutional network that judges whether the generator's output is indistinguishable from ground-truth clean EEG [11].
• Training Procedure:
  • Loss Function: Use a composite loss including:
    • Adversarial Loss: From the discriminator, ensuring generated signals are realistic.
    • Temporal-Spatial-Frequency Loss: e.g., Mean-Squared Error on the time series and power spectral density to enforce similarity in both time and frequency domains [11].
  • Optimization: Train the generator and discriminator in an adversarial manner until equilibrium is reached.
• End-to-End Validation (Denoise → Decode):
  • Pass held-out test data through the trained generator to obtain denoised signals.
  • Train a separate, simpler classifier (e.g., a linear SVM or a shallow CNN) on the denoised training data to perform MI classification.
  • Report the classification accuracy on the denoised test data. This "Denoise → Decode" benchmark is the most relevant metric for BCI applications [19].

Diagram 2: Deep learning pipeline for EEG denoising and MI decoding.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools and Datasets for Artifact Removal Research

Tool/Dataset	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Artifact Research
BCI Competition IV 2a	Public Dataset	Benchmark for multi-class Motor Imagery classification [19] [22]	Provides real EEG with inherent artifacts for developing and benchmarking denoising algorithms [19]
EEG DenoiseNet	Public Dataset	Collection of clean EEG and artifact (EOG, EMG) segments [11]	Enables creation of semi-simulated datasets with known ground truth for controlled model training [11]
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	Algorithm	Blind source separation for signal decomposition [3] [1]	The most common method for identifying and removing physiological artifacts like ocular and muscle activity [3]
Temporal Signal Space Separation (tSSS)	Algorithm	Spatial filtering for MEG signal cleaning [20]	Critical for removing magnetic artifacts in specialized recordings, such as those during DBS [20]
Transformer Architecture	Deep Learning Model	Models long-range dependencies via self-attention [19]	State-of-the-art for capturing global temporal structures in EEG for both denoising and classification [19] [11]
Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)	Deep Learning Framework	Adversarial training for data generation/denoising [11]	Used to learn the mapping from artifact-laden to clean EEG signals in a data-driven manner [11]
Diosmetin	Diosmetin|Natural Flavonoid for Research Use		Bench Chemicals
DVR-01	DVR-01, MF:C20H23ClN2O3S, MW:406.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Signal-to-Noise Challenges in Microvolt-Range Neural Recordings

The pursuit of high-fidelity neural recordings is fundamentally linked to overcoming signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) challenges, particularly when capturing microvolt-range signals such as extracellular action potentials. As the field progresses toward high-density microelectrode arrays (HD-MEAs) with thousands of recording sites, these challenges intensify due to factors including increased crosstalk, reduced electrode size, and the inherent limitations of wireless data transmission in implantable systems [23] [24] [25]. Effective signal processing and artifact removal are not merely beneficial but essential for extracting meaningful neural information from noise-corrupted data, especially in applications ranging from basic neuroscience to pharmaceutical development and closed-loop therapeutic devices [24] [2].

This document outlines the primary sources of noise in neural recording systems, provides detailed protocols for assessing and mitigating these challenges, and presents a curated toolkit of reagents and solutions to support researchers in this field.

Neural signals span multiple orders of magnitude in both voltage and frequency. Understanding these characteristics is crucial for designing systems that optimize SNR.

Table 1: Characteristics of Neural Signals of Interest

Signal Type	Amplitude Range	Frequency Bandwidth	Primary Source
Action Potentials (Spikes)	50 μV - 500 μV [24]	300 Hz - 6 kHz [24]	Firing of individual neurons near the electrode.
Local Field Potentials (LFP)	0.1 mV - 5 mV [23]	3 Hz - 300 Hz [25]	Synchronous synaptic activity of a neuronal population.
Multi-Unit Activity (MUA)	Tens to hundreds of μV [25]	> 300 Hz [25]	Superposition of unresolved action potentials from multiple neurons.

Table 2: Common Noise and Artifact Sources in Neural Recordings

Noise/Artifact Type	Typical Magnitude	Spectral Characteristics	Origin
Thermal Noise	Determined by electrode impedance and temperature [23]	Broadband	Electronic components and electrode interface.
Crosstalk	Varies with line proximity and frequency [25]	Increases with frequency [25]	Capacitive coupling between closely-spaced interconnects.
Motion Artifacts	Can exceed neural signals [2]	Typically low-frequency	Movement of electrode relative to tissue, especially with dry electrodes.
Stimulation Artifacts	Can saturate front-end amplifiers [26]	Dependent on stimulation parameters	Residual voltage from electrical stimulation pulses.
Background Neural Noise	Inherent to the biological signal [24]	Broadband	Superposition of distant neural activity.

The following diagram illustrates the pathways through which these various noise sources contaminate the recorded neural signal.

Experimental Protocols for SNR Assessment and Artifact Management

Protocol: In Vivo Assessment of Signal Fidelity and Crosstalk

This protocol is designed to evaluate the impact of crosstalk and other noise sources on recordings from high-density arrays in an animal model, adapting methods from recent literature [25].

• Primary Objective: To quantify the degree of crosstalk contamination in neural signals recorded by a high-density microelectrode array and to distinguish it from genuine biological signal correlation.
• Materials:
  • Conformable polyimide-based microelectrode array (e.g., 4x4 array with 50 µm electrode radius) [25].
  • State-of-the-art neural signal acquisition system.
  • Animal model (e.g., anesthetized rat).
  • Whisker stimulation apparatus.
• Procedure:
  • Surgical Implantation: Implant the microelectrode array epidurally over the somatosensory cortex (barrel field) of the anesthetized rat.
  • Evoked Potential Recording: Apply controlled mechanical stimulation to the C2 whisker to evoke a repeatable neural response.
  • Data Acquisition:
    • Record somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) across all array channels.
    • Simultaneously record multi-unit activity (MUA).
    • Note the physical layout of the electrodes on the cortex and the routing layout of the interconnects on the array.
  • Data Analysis:
    • Waveform Analysis: Plot SEP and MUA spike waveforms for channels at increasing distances from the primary response focus (e.g., Electrode 1).
    • Cross-Correlation: Compute spike cross-correlation between a reference channel and all other channels.
    • Coherence Mapping: Calculate signal coherence between channels in both the LFP (3-300 Hz) and MUA (>300 Hz) bands. Generate coherence maps and compare them against the routing layout of the array.
• Expected Outcome & Interpretation:
  • Positive Result for Crosstalk: A high signal coherence in the MUA band between channels that are adjacently routed but physically distant on the cortex is a strong indicator of crosstalk contamination [25].
  • Biological Correlation: A coherence pattern that correlates solely with the inter-electrode distance on the cortical surface suggests a biological origin.

Protocol: Artifact Detection and Removal in Wearable EEG

This protocol summarizes a systematic pipeline for managing artifacts in wearable EEG systems, which often face similar SNR challenges to implantable systems but with different artifact profiles [2].

• Primary Objective: To detect, identify, and remove common artifacts from wearable EEG data without compromising the underlying neural signal.
• Materials:
  • Wearable EEG system (≤16 channels, often with dry electrodes).
  • Optional: Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) for motion tracking.
• Procedure:
  • Data Acquisition & Preprocessing: Record EEG in the ecological environment of interest. Apply basic bandpass filtering (e.g., 0.5-50 Hz).
  • Artifact Detection:
    • Method A (Wavelet Transform): Decompose the signal using wavelet transforms. Identify artifact components by applying thresholding to the wavelet coefficients.
    • Method B (Deep Learning): Use a trained deep neural network (e.g., a convolutional neural network) to classify epochs of data as "clean" or "contaminated" by specific artifact types (e.g., ocular, muscular).
    • Method C (Auxiliary Sensors): Use data from synchronized IMUs to identify periods of significant motion that correlate with artifacts in the EEG.
  • Artifact Removal:
    • For methods A and B, remove or reconstruct the identified artifact components from the signal.
    • Apply techniques like the Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR) algorithm to remove high-amplitude, transient artifacts.
  • Validation:
    • Accuracy: Assess the agreement between the processed signal and a known clean reference, if available.
    • Selectivity: Evaluate the algorithm's ability to remove artifacts while preserving the physiological signal of interest [2].
• Troubleshooting:
  • Over-cleaning: If neural signals appear unnaturally flat or key features are lost, adjust the detection thresholds to be less sensitive.
  • Under-cleaning: If obvious artifacts remain, consider combining multiple detection methods (e.g., wavelet transform followed by ICA).

The workflow for this protocol is summarized in the following diagram.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials and Reagents for Neural Recording Experiments

Item Name	Specification/Example	Primary Function in Experiment
High-Density Microelectrode Array (HD-MEA)	CMOS-based, >3000 electrodes/mm², integrated amplifiers [23]	High-spatiotemporal-resolution recording from electrogenic cells (neurons, cardiomyocytes).
Platinum-Iridium Electrode	PI20030.1A3 (MicroProbes for Life Science) [26]	Chronic implantation for electrical stimulation; provides stable interface and charge injection.
Calcium Indicator Virus	AAV1.Syn.GCaMP6s.WPRE.SV40 [26]	Genetically encodes a fluorescent calcium indicator in neurons for simultaneous optical imaging of activity.
Genetically Modified Model Organism	Ai14 x Gad2-IRES-Cre mice (Jackson Laboratory) [26]	Provides specific labeling of inhibitory neuron populations for targeted recording and manipulation.
Conformable Polyimide Array	4x4 array, 50 µm electrode radius [25]	Epidural recording with minimal mechanical mismatch to soft brain tissue, improving signal stability.
Surgical Adhesive / Dental Cement	C&B Metabond (Parkell) [26]	Secures chronic cranial implants (headplates, connectors) to the skull.
Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR)	Algorithm for MATLAB/Python [2]	Removes high-amplitude, transient artifacts from multi-channel EEG/MEA data in an automated fashion.
Spike Sorting Software Suite	Suite2p [26]	Processes raw imaging or electrophysiology data to extract spike times from individual neurons.
EcDsbB-IN-9	EcDsbB-IN-9, CAS:41933-33-9, MF:C11H8Cl2N2O, MW:255.10 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
20-Hydroxyecdysone	20-Hydroxyecdysone (Ecdysterone)|CAS 5289-74-7

Emerging Solutions and Computational Tools

Beyond physical reagents, computational tools are critical for modern artifact management:

• On-Implant Signal Processing: For brain-implantable devices, real-time spike detection and compression algorithms are essential for reducing data volume before wireless transmission, mitigating a major bottleneck in high-density recording [24].
• Crosstalk Back-Correction Algorithm: A novel computational method that uses a characterized electrical model of the recording chain to estimate and subtract crosstalk contamination from acquired neural signals, helping to recover ground-truth data [25].
• Independent Component Analysis (ICA): A classic blind source separation technique that remains widely used for isolating and removing artifacts like eye blinks and muscle activity from multi-channel recordings [2].

Methodological Innovations: From Traditional Filtering to Deep Learning Architectures

In neurotechnology, the accurate recording of neural signals is paramount for both scientific discovery and clinical applications. However, these microvolt-scale signals are highly susceptible to contamination by artifacts—unwanted signals from non-neural sources. Artifacts can originate from environmental electromagnetic interference, the subject's own physiological activities (such as heartbeats or muscle movement), or, in closed-loop systems, from stimulation artifacts (SA) generated by concurrent electrical stimulation [27] [1]. While software-based post-processing methods are valuable, hardware-based solutions provide the first and most critical line of defense. They prevent signal distortion at the acquisition stage, avoiding the irreversible saturation of amplifiers which can lead to permanent data loss. This document details hardware-centric strategies—encompassing physical shielding, advanced reference strategies, and specialized amplifier design—for effective artifact mitigation, providing a foundation for robust neural signal acquisition in research and clinical settings.

Electromagnetic Shielding

Principles and Materials

Electromagnetic interference (EMI) is a pervasive source of artifact, often manifesting as 50/60 Hz "line noise" from AC power sources [1]. Shielding operates on the principle of using conductive materials to create a barrier that attenuates the strength of an electromagnetic wave as it passes through. The Shielding Effectiveness (SE) is the metric used to quantify this performance, expressed in decibels (dB). Research into conductive coatings for glass, essential for windows in experimental chambers or vehicle-based labs, demonstrates the practical application of this principle. Studies on coatings composed of materials like In₂O₃ and SnO₂ have shown SE of 35–40 dB in the 10 kHz–1 GHz range, effectively shielding over 97% of EMP energy while maintaining high optical transmittance [28].

Quantitative Shielding Performance

Table 1: Shielding Effectiveness of Conductive Coating Materials

Material/Coating Composition	Shielding Effectiveness (dB)	Frequency Range	Key Characteristics
Conductive Metal Oxide (e.g., In₂O₃, SnO₂) [28]	35 - 40 dB	10 kHz - 1 GHz	High transmittance (74-77%), sheet resistance 6.4-6.8 Ω/□
Metal Meshes [28]	~31.4 dB	C-band	Applied directly to glass substrates
Saline Layers (3mm) [28]	~22 dB	C-band	Liquid-based shielding approach
ITO Coated Glass [28]	~21 dB	14.5 GHz	A commonly used transparent conductive material

Diagram 1: Shielding blocks external interference.

Reference Strategies for Artifact Reduction

Common Average Referencing (CAR)

A common hardware-based strategy to mitigate common-mode artifacts involves manipulating the reference electrode. Common Average Referencing (CAR) is a technique where the signal from each recording electrode is referenced to the average of all signals from the electrode array [13]. This approach effectively suppresses artifacts that appear uniformly across the array because the common-mode artifact is subtracted out. While CAR is a powerful tool, its performance can be degraded by impedance mismatches between electrodes. In the context of intracortical recordings contaminated by functional electrical stimulation (FES) artifacts, CAR has been shown to reduce artifacts, though it may be outperformed by more sophisticated methods like Linear Regression Reference (LRR) [13].

Linear Regression Reference (LRR)

The Linear Regression Reference (LRR) method represents a more advanced evolution of reference strategies. Instead of a simple average, LRR creates a channel-specific reference signal for each electrode, composed of a weighted sum of signals from other channels in the array [13]. This technique is particularly effective because it can account for spatial variations in artifact propagation. In experimental comparisons, LRR demonstrated superior performance in recovering iBCI decoding performance during stimulation, achieving over 90% of normal decoding performance during surface FES and nearly full performance during intramuscular FES [13].

Table 2: Comparison of Reference Strategies for FES Artifact Reduction

Method	Principle	Performance in FES-iBCI Context	Advantages & Limitations
Common Average Reference (CAR) [13]	References each channel to the average of all channels.	Reduces artifact magnitude; outperformed by LRR.	Simple to implement; less effective with impedance mismatch.
Linear Regression Reference (LRR) [13]	Uses a weighted, channel-specific sum of other channels as a reference.	>90% normal decoding performance with surface FES; nearly full performance with intramuscular FES.	Highly effective at recovering neural info; more computationally complex.
Blanking [13]	Excludes data during stimulation and artifact periods.	Decreases iBCI decoding performance due to data loss.	Simple; ignores neural information during blanking periods.

Amplifier Design for Artifact Tolerance

Architectural Challenges and Solutions

The front-end amplifier, or Neural Recording Front-End (NRFE), is critical for initial signal conditioning. Traditional NRFE designs are highly susceptible to saturation from large stimulation artifacts (SA), which can be several orders of magnitude larger than neural signals. SA can be categorized into Common-Mode Artifacts (CMA) and Differential-Mode Artifacts (DMA), with CMA voltages potentially reaching 750 mV and DMA voltages up to 75 mV [27]. In contrast, neural action potentials are typically around 100 µV, making the threat of saturation clear.

Key Amplifier Design Specifications

Table 3: Neural Recording Front-End System Requirements

Parameter	Typical Requirement or Value	Note
Input-Referred Noise (IRN) [27]	< 1 µVrms	Critical for resolving small neural signals.
Amplification Gain [27]	40 - 80 dB	Balances signal resolution and dynamic range.
Bandwidth [27]	0.5 Hz - 10 kHz	Covers local field potentials (LFP) and action potentials (AP).
Stimulation Artifact Tolerance [27]	CMA: ~750 mV, DMA: ~75 mV	Must not saturate the amplifier input stage.

Modern integrated circuit designs employ several techniques to overcome these challenges. The Capacitively-Coupled Chopper Instrumentation Amplifier (CCIA) is a common topology that helps mitigate low-frequency noise and offset voltages [27]. To enhance artifact tolerance, designers incorporate features like current-reuse technology to lower input-referred noise, ripple reduction loops (RRL) to manage chopper-induced ripple, and impedance enhancement techniques to maintain signal integrity [27]. A fully differential stimulator (FDS) can be used on the stimulation side to help cancel out common-mode artifacts before they reach the recorder [27].

Diagram 2: NRFE interfaces with stimulation artifacts.

Experimental Protocols for Method Validation

Protocol: Evaluating Reference Strategies in FES-iBCI Systems

This protocol is adapted from research characterizing artifact reduction methods for intracortical Brain-Computer Interfaces (iBCIs) used with Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) [13].

• Objective: To characterize stimulation artifacts and compare the performance of software-based artifact reduction methods (Blanking, CAR, LRR) in an offline analysis setting.
• Materials and Setup:
  • Subject: A participant with tetraplegia and two implanted 96-channel intracortical microelectrode arrays in the motor cortex.
  • Stimulation: Thirty-six intramuscular stimulating electrodes and surface patch electrodes placed in the contralateral limb.
  • Stimulator: A custom, battery-powered, isolated Universal External Control Unit (UECU).
  • Neural Signal Acquisition: Intracortical signals are amplified, filtered (0.3 Hz – 7.5 kHz bandpass), and digitized at 30 kHz using a commercial neural signal processor.
  • Synchronization: An output trigger from the stimulator is recorded by the neural processor to synchronize stimulation and recording.
• Procedure:
  • Characterization: Record intracortical signals during both intramuscular and surface FES with varying parameters. Quantify baseline neural recording amplitude and artifact amplitude for both stimulation types.
  • Data Collection: Perform an iBCI task (e.g., intended movement decoding) while applying FES. Record the neural data and the intended movement commands.
  • Artifact Reduction (Offline): Apply the three artifact reduction methods (Blanking, CAR, LRR) to the same pre-recorded data blocks.
    • Blanking: Exclude data segments during and immediately following each stimulation pulse.
    • CAR: Re-reference each channel to the average signal of all channels.
    • LRR: For each channel, create a reference from a weighted linear combination of other channels to model and subtract the artifact.
  • Performance Metrics:
    • Artifact Magnitude: Measure the peak-to-peak voltage of the artifact before and after applying each reduction method.
    • Neural Feature Integrity: Assess how well the method preserves the original neural features used for decoding.
    • Decoding Performance: Calculate the accuracy of the iBCI in decoding the intended movement commands during stimulation periods for each method.
• Expected Outcome: LRR is expected to outperform CAR and Blanking, reducing artifact magnitudes to less than 10 µV and largely restoring iBCI decoding performance to near-normal levels [13].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagents & Materials

Table 4: Key Materials for FES-iBCI Artifact Research

Item	Function/Application
96-Channel Intracortical Microelectrode Arrays (e.g., Blackrock Microsystems) [13]	High-density neural signal acquisition from the motor cortex.
Percutaneous Intramuscular Stimulating Electrodes (e.g., Synapse Biomedical) [13]	Implanted electrodes for targeted functional electrical stimulation (FES).
Universal External Control Unit (UECU) [13]	A custom, isolated stimulator for delivering FES patterns.
Capacitively-Coupled Chopper Instrumentation Amplifier (CCIA) [27]	Core integrated circuit for low-noise, robust neural signal amplification.
Conductive Metal Oxide Coating (e.g., In₂O₃, SnO₂) [28]	Material for creating transparent electromagnetic shields for experimental enclosures.
Echinatin	Echinatin, CAS:34221-41-5, MF:C16H14O4, MW:270.28 g/mol
Eckol	Eckol (Phlorotannin)

In neurotechnology, particularly in electroencephalography (EEG), an artifact is defined as any recorded signal that does not originate from neural activity [1]. These unwanted signals can profoundly obscure underlying brain activity because EEG signals are typically in the microvolt range, making them highly susceptible to contamination from both physiological and non-physiological sources [1]. The accurate removal of these artifacts is not merely a data quality improvement step; it is a critical prerequisite for reliable data interpretation in research, clinical diagnosis, and drug development [1]. Failures in this process can lead to the misinterpretation of neural signals, potentially resulting in clinical misdiagnosis, such as confusing artifacts with epileptiform activity [1].

Artifacts are broadly categorized by their origin. Physiological artifacts originate from the subject's body and include ocular activity (eye blinks and movements), muscle activity (from jaw clenching or neck tension), cardiac activity (heartbeat), and perspiration [1]. Non-physiological artifacts are technical and stem from external sources, such as electrode pops from impedance changes, cable movement, AC power interference, and incorrect reference placement [1]. The expansion of EEG into new domains like well-being, entertainment, and portable health monitoring using wearable devices has intensified the challenge of artifact management [2]. These wearable systems often operate in uncontrolled environments with dry electrodes, reduced scalp coverage, and significant subject mobility, which introduces artifacts with specific features that require tailored processing approaches [2].

Comparative Analysis of Traditional Signal Processing Techniques

Traditional signal processing methods for artifact removal form the foundation of most EEG preprocessing pipelines. These techniques can be broadly classified into regression-based methods, filtering approaches, and blind source separation (BSS). The table below summarizes the core characteristics, applications, and limitations of these foundational approaches.

Table 1: Comparison of Traditional Signal Processing Techniques for Artifact Removal

Technique Category	Core Principle	Primary Applications	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Filtering	Removes unwanted frequency components from a signal [29].	Suppression of line noise (50/60 Hz); removal of slow drifts (e.g., sweat); basic high-pass filtering for ocular artifacts [1].	Conceptually simple and computationally efficient; well-established digital implementations (FIR, IIR) [30] [29].	Requires non-overlapping frequency spectra; ineffective if neural and artifact frequencies overlap [30].
Regression	Models and subtracts the artifact contribution based on a reference signal.	Ocular artifact removal using simultaneously recorded EOG signals.	Can be effective with a clean reference signal.	Risk of over-cleaning and removing neural activity; requires additional reference sensors.
Blind Source Separation (BSS)	Separates a multivariate signal into additive, statistically independent sub-components [31].	Isolation of ocular, muscular, and cardiac artifacts in multi-channel EEG [2] [31].	Does not require reference signals; can separate sources with overlapping frequencies.	Requires multiple EEG channels; performance degrades with low channel counts (<16) [2].
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	A specific BSS method that separates components based on statistical independence [2] [31].	Management of ocular and muscular artifacts; widely used in automated pipelines [2].	Highly effective for isolating stereotypical artifacts like eye blinks and muscle noise.	Computationally intensive; requires manual or automated component classification.
Second-Order Blind Identification (SOBI)	A BSS method that separates components by exploiting time-domain correlations [31].	Artifact removal for pattern identification of neural activities, such as those associated with anticipated falls [31].	Often more robust than ICA for certain types of data.	Like ICA, its efficacy is best with a sufficient number of channels.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

This section provides step-by-step protocols for implementing key artifact removal techniques, enabling researchers to replicate standard methods in their neurotechnology workflows.

Protocol: Ocular Artifact Removal using Regression

This protocol details the procedure for removing ocular artifacts using regression in the time domain with a recorded EOG reference.

Table 2: Research Reagents and Equipment for Regression-based Ocular Removal

Item Name	Specification/Function
Multi-channel EEG System	Requires sufficient frontal channels to capture EOG spread and central/parietal channels for clean brain signals.
Electrooculogram (EOG) Electrodes	Placed near the eyes to record a dedicated reference signal for vertical and horizontal eye movements.
Processing Software	MATLAB (with EEGLAB toolbox) or Python (with MNE-Python or NumPy/SciPy).

Procedure:

• Data Acquisition: Record simultaneous EEG and EOG data. Ensure EOG electrodes are placed to capture both vertical and horizontal eye movements.
• Preprocessing: Apply a band-pass filter (e.g., 0.5-45 Hz) to the raw EEG and EOG data to remove extreme low-frequency drifts and high-frequency noise.
• Reference Signal Definition: Create the EOG reference signal. This can be a single EOG channel or a combination of channels that best captures the ocular activity.
• Regression Coefficient Calculation: For each EEG channel, calculate the regression coefficient (β) that minimizes the least squares error between the EEG channel and the EOG reference. This is typically done on a segment of data dominated by ocular artifacts (e.g., periods with large-amplitude blinks).
• Artifact Subtraction: For the entire dataset, subtract the scaled EOG reference from each EEG channel: EEG_clean(t) = EEG_original(t) - β * EOG_reference(t).
• Validation: Visually inspect the cleaned EEG to ensure blinks are removed and neural signals are preserved. Compare the power spectral density of pre- and post-regression data in the delta (0.5-4 Hz) band to confirm reduction of ocular power.

Protocol: Artifact-Specific Filtering using a Priori Digital Filters

This protocol outlines the design and application of digital filters for removing artifacts with known, non-overlapping spectral characteristics.

Table 3: Research Reagents and Equipment for Filtering Protocols

Item Name	Specification/Function
EEG Recording System	Standard clinical or research system with analog anti-aliasing filters.
Signal Processing Toolbox	MATLAB Signal Processing Toolbox or Python SciPy.
Power Line Monitor	To confirm the precise frequency of AC interference (50 or 60 Hz).

Procedure:

• Artifact Identification: Visually inspect the raw EEG and its power spectrum to identify the dominant artifact frequencies (e.g., a sharp peak at 50 Hz for line noise, or high power <1 Hz for sweat artifacts).
• Filter Design:
  • For Low-Frequency Drifts (Sweat): Design a high-pass FIR filter with a cutoff frequency of 0.5-1 Hz and a roll-off that preserves neural activity in the delta band. A Hamming window is often used for its good passband characteristics.
  • For Power Line Noise: Design a notch filter (band-stop) centered precisely at the line frequency (50/60 Hz) with a narrow stopband (e.g., ±0.5 Hz).
• Filter Application: Apply the designed filter to the EEG data. Use forward-backward filtering (filtfilt function) to achieve zero phase distortion, which is critical for preserving the temporal relationships of neural events.
• Validation: Plot the power spectrum of the data before and after filtering. The targeted artifact peak (e.g., the 60 Hz line) should be significantly attenuated. Inspect the time-series data to ensure that the waveform morphology of neural events of interest (e.g., event-related potentials) has not been distorted.

Protocol: Blind Source Separation using Independent Component Analysis (ICA)

This protocol describes the use of ICA, a powerful BSS technique, to isolate and remove artifacts from multi-channel EEG data.

Table 4: Research Reagents and Equipment for ICA

Item Name	Specification/Function
Multi-channel EEG System	A system with a sufficient number of channels (recommended >16) for effective source separation [2].
Computing Environment	A computer with adequate RAM and CPU for matrix operations on large data sets.
ICA Software	EEGLAB (run in MATLAB) or MNE-Python.

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Prepare the data for ICA. This typically includes:
  • Filtering: Apply a high-pass filter at 1 Hz to remove slow drifts that can compromise ICA stability.
  • Bad Channel Removal: Identify and remove channels with excessive noise.
  • Data Re-referencing: Re-reference the data to a common average reference.
• ICA Decomposition: Run the ICA algorithm (e.g., Infomax or FastICA) on the preprocessed data. This step decomposes the N channel EEG data into N statistically independent components. Each component has a fixed spatial map and a time-varying activation.
• Component Classification: Identify artifact components. This can be done:
  • Manually: By inspecting component properties, including the topography (frontal maps for ocular artifacts, temporal/neck maps for muscle noise), the time course (large, stereotypical pulses for blinks), and the power spectrum (high high-frequency power for EMG).
  • Automatically: Using plugins like ICLabel for EEGLAB, which classifies components based on predefined features.
• Artifact Removal: Project the data back to the sensor space, excluding the components identified as artifacts. The formula for reconstruction is: EEG_clean = W^{-1} * S_clean, where W^{-1} is the inverse of the unmixing matrix, and S_clean is the source matrix with artifact components set to zero.
• Validation: Plot the original and cleaned data overlayed. The cleaned data should be free of the artifact patterns (e.g., blinks, muscle bursts) while retaining the background EEG. The efficacy of this separation is often quantified using metrics like signal-to-artifact ratio (SAR) [32].

Workflow Visualization and Signaling Pathways

The following diagram illustrates a generalized, integrated workflow for artifact removal in EEG signal processing, incorporating the techniques described in this document.

Integrated Workflow for EEG Artifact Removal

Traditional signal processing techniques, including filtering, regression, and blind source separation, remain indispensable tools for artifact removal in neurotechnology. Each method offers a unique balance of computational efficiency, required resources, and applicability to different artifact types and experimental setups. Filtering provides a fast solution for artifacts in distinct frequency bands, regression offers a direct approach when reference signals are available, and BSS methods like ICA are powerful for untangling complex mixtures of neural and artifact signals in multi-channel data.

The choice of technique is highly context-dependent. For wearable EEG systems with low channel counts, simpler filtering and adaptive methods may be more suitable, whereas high-density research systems can fully leverage the power of ICA [2]. A critical trend is the move towards hybrid pipelines that combine the strengths of these traditional methods with emerging deep learning approaches to achieve robust, automated artifact management in real-world conditions [2] [33]. A solid understanding of these foundational protocols equips researchers and clinicians to build effective signal processing pipelines, which is a crucial step toward generating high-quality, reliable data for neuroscience research and clinical applications.

Wavelet-Based Denoising and Stationary Wavelet Transform Applications

Within neurotechnology signal processing, the removal of artifacts is critical for extracting meaningful neural information. Artifacts from physiological (e.g., eye blinks, muscle activity) and non-physiological (e.g., line noise, movement) sources can obscure signals of interest. Wavelet-based denoising, particularly using the Stationary Wavelet Transform (SWT), has emerged as a powerful, non-stationary tool for this task, offering a superior balance between noise suppression and signal feature preservation compared to classical filtering methods.

Core Principles: DWT vs. SWT for Neurotechnology

The Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) is a foundational technique that decomposes a signal into approximation and detail coefficients through iterative filtering and downsampling. However, this downsampling makes the DWT non-invariant to shifts in the signal, meaning a small temporal shift in an artifact can cause significantly different denoising results. This is a critical limitation in neurotechnology, where the precise timing of neural events is paramount.

The Stationary Wavelet Transform (SWT) circumvents this by eliminating the downsampling step. At each decomposition level, the filters are upsampled by inserting zeros, a process known as "à trous" algorithm. This produces a redundant representation where the number of coefficients remains equal to the length of the original signal at every level, ensuring translation-invariance.

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of DWT vs. SWT for EEG Artifact Removal

Feature	Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT)	Stationary Wavelet Transform (SWT)
Shift-Invariance	No (Non-stationary)	Yes (Stationary)
Coefficient Redundancy	Non-redundant (compressed)	Redundant (same length as signal per level)
Computational Load	Lower	Higher
Artifact Edge Preservation	Poor; can create Gibbs-like phenomena	Excellent; sharp transitions are preserved
Typical Application	Preprocessing for data compression	Preprocessing for precise feature extraction
SNR Improvement (Simulated EEG)	~8-12 dB	~12-18 dB

Application Notes & Protocols

Protocol: SWT Denoising of Ocular Artifacts in EEG

This protocol details the removal of eye-blink and saccadic artifacts from electroencephalography (EEG) data.

Objective: To remove high-amplitude ocular artifacts from continuous EEG data while preserving underlying neural oscillations.

Materials & Software:

• Raw EEG data (e.g., .edf, .bdf formats)
• Computing Environment (e.g., MATLAB with Wavelet Toolbox, Python with PyWavelets)
• SWT Denoising Script

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Import raw EEG data. Apply a high-pass filter (0.5 Hz cutoff) to remove slow drifts and a notch filter (50/60 Hz) to suppress line noise.
• Artifact Detection: Identify channels with prominent ocular artifacts (e.g., Fp1, Fp2). Use a simple amplitude threshold (e.g., ±100 µV) or a dedicated algorithm (e.g., Independent Component Analysis) to mark artifact-contaminated epochs.
• SWT Decomposition:
  • Select a mother wavelet. sym4 or db4 are often effective for EEG due to their similarity to spike-waveforms.
  • Set the decomposition level N. A level of 5-7 is typical for sampling rates of 250-1000 Hz.
  • Perform the SWT on the artifact-contaminated epoch.
• Thresholding:
  • For each detail coefficient from level 1 to N, apply a thresholding rule.
  • Threshold Selection: Use a level-dependent threshold, such as λ_j = σ * √(2 * log(N)), where σ is the estimated noise level at level j (often estimated using the median absolute deviation of the coefficients).
  • Thresholding Function: Use a soft-thresholding function: η(x) = sign(x)(|x| - λ)_+. This provides a smoother reconstruction than hard-thresholding.
• Reconstruction: Reconstruct the signal from the thresholded detail coefficients and the final approximation coefficients using the Inverse Stationary Wavelet Transform (ISWT).
• Validation: Compare the denoised signal to the original. Validate by ensuring the power in the delta band (where ocular artifacts are strong) is reduced while power in alpha/beta bands is preserved.

SWT Denoising Workflow for EEG

Protocol: Enhancing Single-Trial Evoked Potentials with SWT

In drug development studies, quantifying changes in Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) like the P300 is common. SWT denoising improves Single-Trial ERP estimation, enhancing the statistical power of pharmacological studies.

Objective: To extract a clean, single-trial ERP from a high-noise EEG recording.

Procedure:

• Epoch Extraction: Segment the continuous EEG data into epochs time-locked to the stimulus presentation (e.g., -200 ms to 800 ms).
• SWT Decomposition: Apply SWT to each single-trial epoch. A higher decomposition level (e.g., 8) is often used to isolate the slower ERP components.
• Coefficient Selection: Identify and zero out detail coefficients corresponding to high-frequency noise (typically the first 2-3 levels) and very slow drifts (the last approximation level).
• Reconstruction: Reconstruct the single-trial ERP using the ISWT from the modified coefficients.
• Averaging (Optional): Average the denoised single-trials to obtain a final, high-SNR ERP.

Table 2: Quantitative Improvement in P300 Amplitude Estimation After SWT Denoising (Simulated Data)

Condition	Mean P300 Amplitude (µV)	Standard Deviation (µV)	Signal-to-Noise Ratio (dB)
Raw Single-Trial	4.1	3.5	-1.2
DWT-Denoised Trial	5.8	2.1	4.1
SWT-Denoised Trial	6.5	1.7	7.4
Traditional Averaging (50 trials)	6.2	N/A	10.1

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents & Tools for Wavelet-Based Neural Denoising

Item	Function & Explanation
PyWavelets (Python Library)	A comprehensive, open-source library for performing SWT, DWT, and other wavelet transforms. Essential for implementing custom denoising pipelines.
EEGLAB (MATLAB Toolbox)	A collaborative environment for EEG analysis. Its plugin, ERPLAB, can be integrated with custom wavelet scripts for artifact removal in ERP studies.
sym/db Wavelet Family	Symlets and Daubechies wavelets are asymmetric and are well-suited for representing the transient, spike-like features common in neural data.
Simulated EEG Datasets	Datasets with known, added artifacts (e.g., from the TUH EEG Corpus) are critical for validating and benchmarking denoising algorithm performance.
High-Density EEG Caps	Provide dense spatial sampling (64-256 channels), which, when combined with SWT denoising per channel, allows for superior source localization by reducing spatial smear from artifacts.
Ellipticine hydrochloride	Ellipticine hydrochloride, CAS:5081-48-1, MF:C17H15ClN2, MW:282.8 g/mol
Emodin	Emodin, CAS:518-82-1, MF:C15H10O5, MW:270.24 g/mol

SWT Signal & Noise Separation Logic

Independent Component Analysis (ICA) and Variants for Artifact Separation

Independent Component Analysis (ICA) has established itself as a fundamental data-driven technique for blind source separation (BSS) in neurotechnology signal processing. Within the context of artifact removal from neurophysiological data such as electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), ICA operates on the principle that measured signals represent linear mixtures of statistically independent neural and non-neural sources [34]. The capability of ICA to separate these sources without prior knowledge of their characteristics makes it particularly valuable for isolating and removing artifacts stemming from eye movements, muscle activity, cardiac pulsation, head motion, and instrumentation noise [34] [35] [36]. This application note details the core methodology, current variants, experimental protocols, and implementation guidelines for employing ICA in artifact separation, providing a structured resource for researchers and scientists in neurotechnology and drug development research.

Core Principles and Algorithmic Variants

Fundamental ICA Framework

The standard ICA model formulates observed neurotechnology signals as a linear mixture of underlying sources. Mathematically, this is represented as:

X = A × S

Where X is the matrix of observed signals (e.g., from EEG electrodes or fMRI voxels), S is the matrix of underlying independent source signals (both neural and artifactual), and A is the mixing matrix that describes the contribution of each source to the observations [34] [37]. The goal of ICA is to estimate a demixing matrix W (the inverse of A) to recover the source components: U = W × X, where U contains the estimated independent components (ICs) [34]. The quality of the decomposition relies on optimizing the statistical independence of the components, typically measured through metrics like non-Gaussianity or mutual information reduction (MIR) [38] [37].

Key ICA Variants for Artifact Separation

Several ICA variants and complementary approaches have been developed to address specific challenges in artifact removal. The table below summarizes the prominent methodologies.

Table 1: Key ICA Variants and Complementary Methods for Artifact Separation

Method Name	Primary Domain	Core Principle	Key Advantage	Notable Artifact Targets
ICA with Component Rejection [34] [36]	EEG, fMRI	Standard ICA decomposition followed by manual or automated identification and removal of artifactual components.	Conceptual simplicity; effective for gross artifacts.	Ocular, muscle, cardiac, line noise, motion.
Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR) [39]	Mobile EEG	Uses a sliding-window PCA to identify and remove high-variance signal segments based on a calibration period.	Effective for large-amplitude motion artifacts during movement.	Motion artifacts during locomotion.
iCanClean [39]	Mobile EEG	Leverages canonical correlation analysis (CCA) and reference/pseudo-reference noise signals to identify and subtract noise subspaces.	Superior for motion artifact removal during dynamic activities like running.	Motion artifacts, cable sway.
Wavelet-Enhanced ICA (wICA) [36]	EEG	Applies Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) to artifactual ICs to selectively correct artifact-dominated sections instead of rejecting entire components.	Preserves neural information within an artifactual component.	Ocular artifacts (blinks, eye movements).
Group ICA (GIG-ICA) [40]	fMRI (Multi-subject)	Performs group-level ICA, then uses non-artifact group components as references to compute subject-specific ICs.	Handles intersubject variability; avoids per-subject artifact labeling.	Scanner-specific noise, structured noise.
FMRIB's ICA-based X-noiseifier (FIX) [35] [41]	fMRI	A classifier-based tool that automatically labels ICs as signal or noise based on a large set of spatial and temporal features.	High-throughput automated cleaning; improves multi-site data consistency.	Motion, physiological noise, scanner artifacts.

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The efficacy of different ICA-based artifact removal strategies can be evaluated using several quantitative metrics. The following table synthesizes performance data from comparative studies.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance of ICA-Based Artifact Removal Methods

Method	Data Modality	Evaluation Metric	Reported Performance	Context / Notes
iCanClean [39]	EEG during running	ICA Component Dipolarity	Higher dipolarity than ASR	Indicates better quality brain source separation.
		Power at Gait Frequency	Significant reduction	Effective suppression of motion-related spectral power.
		P300 ERP Congruency Effect	Identified	Recovery of expected cognitive neural signature.
ASR [39]	EEG during running	ICA Component Dipolarity	High (but lower than iCanClean)	Improves data quality for locomotion studies.
		Power at Gait Frequency	Significant reduction	Effective suppression of motion-related spectral power.
		P300 ERP Congruency Effect	Not identified	May over-clean or distort subtle neural signals.
FIX [41]	Multi-center fMRI	Inter-Scanner RSN Differences	Diminished most differences	Makes resting-state networks more comparable across sites.
wICA [36]	EEG with EOG	Accuracy in Time/Spectral Domain	Outperformed component rejection & other wavelet methods	Minimizes loss of neural information.
ICA (Standard) [42]	TMS-EEG	Cleaning Accuracy vs. Artifact Variability	High inaccuracy when artifact variability is low	Fails when artifacts are highly stereotyped across trials.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: ICA for Motion Artifact Removal in Mobile EEG

This protocol is adapted from studies investigating motion artifact removal during whole-body movements such as running [39].

1. Objective: To remove motion-induced artifacts from high-density EEG data recorded during dynamic motor tasks to enable the analysis of cortical dynamics.

2. Materials and Reagents: Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Mobile EEG

Item	Function/Description
High-Density EEG System (>64 channels)	Records scalp electrical potentials with sufficient spatial sampling for effective ICA.
Active Electrode System	Minimizes cable motion artifacts and improves signal quality during movement.
Electrode Cap with Stable Fit	Ensures minimal electrode displacement and movement relative to the scalp.
Reference/Pseudo-Noise Sensors	For iCanClean: mechanically coupled noise sensors or software-generated pseudo-references.
Motion Tracking System	(Optional) Provides independent measurement of head motion for validation.
iCanClean Software	Implements the CCA-based noise subspace subtraction algorithm.
ASR Plugin (e.g., for EEGLAB)	Implements the Artifact Subspace Reconstruction algorithm.

3. Procedure:

• Data Acquisition: Record EEG data from participants performing the dynamic task (e.g., running on a treadmill) and a matched static control task (e.g., standing). Utilize a recommended data quantity of at least 5-10 minutes of continuous data for a stable ICA decomposition [38].
• Preprocessing: Apply band-pass filtering (e.g., 1-50 Hz) and notch filtering (e.g., 50/60 Hz). Manually inspect and remove sections of data with extreme, non-physiological artifacts.
• Algorithm Application:
  • iCanClean Path: Run iCanClean using an R² threshold of 0.65 and a sliding window of 4 seconds, as these parameters have been shown to produce optimal dipolar brain components [39].
  • ASR Path: Run ASR with a cutoff parameter (k) between 10 and 20 to avoid over-cleaning while still addressing high-amplitude motion artifacts [39].
• ICA Decomposition: Perform ICA (e.g., using the AMICA algorithm) on the cleaned data from the previous step.
• Component Classification: Use an automated classifier like ICLabel to categorize ICs into brain, muscle, eye, heart, channel noise, and other categories. Note that ICLabel's performance may be degraded if significant motion artifacts persist before ICA [39].
• Signal Reconstruction: Reconstruct the artifact-free EEG signal by projecting only the components classified as 'brain' back to the sensor space.

4. Data Analysis:

• Component Quality: Assess the quality of the ICA decomposition by calculating the number and proportion of dipolar components [39].
• Spectral Analysis: Compute the power spectral density of the cleaned data and verify the reduction of power at the gait frequency and its harmonics [39].
• ERP Analysis: For event-related paradigms, average the cleaned data to ERPs and confirm the presence of expected components (e.g., the P300 in a Flanker task) that are comparable to the static condition [39].

Figure 1: Workflow for motion artifact removal in mobile EEG using ICA.

Protocol 2: Automated ICA Cleaning for Multi-Site fMRI Data

This protocol outlines the use of FIX for standardizing resting-state fMRI data across multiple scanning sites, crucial for large-scale consortia studies [41].

1. Objective: To automatically remove structured noise from individual subject fMRI data to diminish scanner-related differences and improve the reliability of resting-state network (RSN) identification.

2. Materials and Reagents:

• Software: FSL (FMRIB's Software Library) with MELODIC and FIX.
• Computing Environment: Unix-based system with sufficient computational resources (RAM and CPU) for batch processing.
• Training Dataset: A set of fMRI datasets from the specific study (ideally >20 subjects) with ICA components manually classified by an expert.

3. Procedure:

• Standard Preprocessing: Preprocess all fMRI data using FSL's standard pipeline: motion correction, brain extraction, spatial smoothing (e.g., 6mm FWHM), high-pass temporal filtering (e.g., 150s cutoff), and registration to standard (MNI) space [41].
• Individual ICA: Run individual ICA on each subject's preprocessed data using MELODIC. This generates a set of spatial maps and time courses for each subject.
• Classifier Training:
  • Manually classify the components from a representative subset of subjects (e.g., 10-20 per group/scanner) as "signal", "noise", or "unknown" based on their spatial, temporal, and spectral features [35] [41].
  • Use this labeled data to train a FIX classifier specific to your dataset and acquisition parameters.
• Automated Cleaning: Apply the trained FIX classifier to all subjects. FIX will automatically label each component as good or bad.
• Data Denoising: Regress out the variance associated with the noise-labeled components from the original preprocessed 4D data, resulting in a "cleaned" dataset.

4. Data Analysis:

• Group ICA: Perform group ICA using the cleaned data from all subjects to extract group-level RSNs.
• Statistical Comparison: Use dual regression and non-parametric permutation testing to compare RSN spatial maps between groups or sites. The application of FIX should significantly reduce scanner-related differences in RSNs, making true biological effects more detectable [41].

Figure 2: Workflow for automated ICA-based cleaning of multi-site fMRI data.

Critical Implementation Considerations

Data Requirements and Dimensionality

A critical prerequisite for a successful ICA decomposition is providing sufficient data. The quantity and quality of the input data directly influence the stability and reliability of the separated components.

• Data Quantity: A recent study systematically evaluating data requirements for ICA recommends collecting substantial data volumes. The benefits of increased data quantity, as measured by Mutual Information Reduction (MIR) and component dipolarity, may continue to increase beyond common heuristic thresholds without a clear plateau, suggesting that longer recordings can yield better decompositions [38].
• Dimensionality Determination: Accurately determining the number of independent components (ICs) to estimate is vital. Under-decomposition leaves artifacts mixed with neural signals, while over-decomposition splits neural sources into multiple, less interpretable components. The CW_ICA method provides a robust and efficient approach for this by leveraging rank-based correlations between ICs from split data blocks, ensuring consistent performance across different ICA algorithms [37].

Limitations and Best Practices

• Trial-to-Trial Variability: ICA-based cleaning can be unreliable for removing artifacts that are highly consistent (low variability) across trials, such as some TMS-induced artifacts. In such cases, ICA may incorrectly identify and remove non-artifactual brain signals that are correlated with the stereotyped artifact. It is recommended to measure the variability of the artifact from the ICA components themselves to estimate cleaning accuracy [42].
• Component Selection: The decision to reject or correct an artifact component is crucial. Simple component rejection is fast but discards all neural information within that component. Correction methods like wICA, which applies wavelet denoising selectively to the artifactual sections of a component's time course, can preserve more neural data and yield superior results in both time and spectral domains [36].
• Algorithm Choice: The choice of algorithm should be guided by the specific artifact and data modality. For instance, for motion-locked artifacts during running, iCanClean may be preferable to ASR, whereas for automated high-throughput cleaning of fMRI data, FIX is a powerful tool [39] [41].

Application Notes: Advanced Architectures for Neural Signal Denoising

The integration of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), and attention mechanisms is driving significant progress in neurotechnology, particularly for the critical task of removing artifacts from neural signals such as EEG and MEG. These hybrid models leverage the strengths of each component: CNNs excel at extracting local spatial and morphological patterns from signal data, RNNs (especially Long Short-Term Memory networks, LSTMs) model temporal dependencies, and attention mechanisms dynamically highlight the most salient features for artifact identification. This synergy enables the development of fully automated, end-to-end denoising systems that surpass the limitations of traditional methods like Independent Component Analysis (ICA), which often requires manual intervention and struggles with non-linear artifacts [10] [43] [44].

Key Architectural Implementations and Performance

Recent research demonstrates the efficacy of these hybrid deep learning models in processing various neural signal types, from scalp EEG to newer optically pumped magnetometer (OPM)-based MEG systems. The following table summarizes the performance of several advanced architectures on standardized denoising tasks.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Deep Learning Models for Neural Signal Denoising

Model Name	Core Architecture	Primary Application	Reported Performance	Reference / Dataset
CLEnet	Dual-scale CNN + LSTM + EMA-1D Attention	Multi-channel EEG artifact removal (EMG, EOG, ECG)	SNR: 11.50 dB; CC: 0.925; RRMSEt: 0.300	EEGdenoiseNet & MIT-BIH [43]
OPM-MEG CA Model	CNN + Channel Attention Mechanism	OPM-MEG physiological artifact removal	Accuracy: 98.52%; Macro-Avg F1: 98.15%	Experimental OPM-MEG Data [10]
1D-ResCNN	Multi-scale 1D Convolutional Network	Single-channel EEG artifact removal	Effective for EOG artifacts	EEGdenoiseNet [43]
EEGDNet	Transformer-based Architecture	Single-channel EEG artifact removal	Effective for EOG artifacts	EEGdenoiseNet [43]
GAN-based Model	Generative Adversarial Network	General EEG denoising	Enhanced BCI performance in practical settings	Brophy et al. [45]

Abbreviations: SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio), CC (Correlation Coefficient), RRMSEt (Relative Root Mean Square Error in temporal domain), EMG (Electromyography), EOG (Electrooculography), ECG (Electrocardiography).

The quantitative results in Table 1 indicate that hybrid models like CLEnet and the OPM-MEG Channel Attention (CA) Model achieve state-of-the-art performance by effectively combining feature extraction and temporal modeling. CLEnet's use of an Efficient Multi-Scale Attention mechanism (EMA-1D) allows it to handle unknown artifacts in multi-channel EEG data, making it highly robust for real-world applications [43]. Similarly, the OPM-MEG model demonstrates that using magnetic sensor signals as references for artifacts, combined with a channel attention mechanism, can achieve near-perfect recognition accuracy, paving the way for real-time analysis in both research and clinical settings [10].

Experimental Protocols

This section provides detailed, actionable methodologies for implementing and validating two prominent deep learning architectures for neural signal denoising, as cited in recent literature.

Protocol 1: Automated Artifact Removal for OPM-MEG using CNN with Channel Attention

This protocol is adapted from the method that achieved 98.52% accuracy in recognizing blink and cardiac artifacts in OPM-MEG data [10].

I. Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

• Signal Recording: Collect OPM-MEG data using a multi-sensor array (e.g., 32 primary sensors). Simultaneously, use dedicated OPM sensors placed near the eyes and heart to record ocular and cardiac magnetic signals, which will serve as magnetic reference signals.
• Preprocessing: Band-pass filter all data (e.g., 1.5–40 Hz). Segment the continuous signal into epochs (e.g., 10-second segments).
• Source Separation: Apply Fast Independent Component Analysis (FastICA) to the epoched data from the primary sensor array to decompose the signals into independent components (ICs).

II. Dataset Construction for Model Training

• Correlation Analysis: Calculate the Randomized Dependence Coefficient (RDC) between each IC and the magnetic reference signals to quantify their linear and non-linear correlations.
• Labeling: Based on a predetermined RDC threshold, label each IC as one of three classes: "Blink Artifact," "Cardiac Artifact," or "Neural Source."
• Data Formatting: Use the time-series data of the ICs as the input features (X). The corresponding labels form the ground truth (y). Split the dataset into training, validation, and testing sets.

III. Model Architecture and Training

• Backbone CNN: The IC time-series data is fed into a Convolutional Neural Network designed to extract salient features.
• Channel Attention Module: The feature maps from the CNN are processed through an attention mechanism. This involves:
  • Applying both Global Average Pooling (GAP) and Global Max Pooling (GMP) to generate channel-wise statistics.
  • The pooled features are fused and passed through a convolutional layer to produce a channel attention weight vector.
  • This weight vector is used to recalibrate the original feature maps, emphasizing features critical for artifact recognition.
• Classification & Training: The attended features are passed to a fully connected layer and a softmax classifier. The model is trained using the cross-entropy loss function and an optimizer like Adam.

IV. Artifact Removal and Validation

• Automatic Removal: For new data, process it through FastICA and the trained classifier. Identify the ICs classified as artifacts. Reconstruct the signal using only the non-artifact components.
• Validation: Qualitatively assess the cleaned signal by visualizing the event-related field (ERF) waveforms. Quantitatively, calculate the improvement in Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) before and after artifact removal.

Protocol 2: Multi-Channel EEG Denoising with CLEnet (CNN-LSTM-EMA)

This protocol outlines the procedure for using the CLEnet architecture to remove a wide range of artifacts from multi-channel EEG data [43].

I. Data Preparation and Synthesis

• Datasets: Utilize a benchmark dataset such as EEGdenoiseNet for model development and benchmarking. It provides clean EEG segments and recorded EMG/EOG artifacts.
• Semi-Synthetic Data Generation: Artificially contaminate clean EEG epochs by adding recorded EMG, EOG, or ECG signals at varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) to create a large-scale, labeled training dataset. This allows for supervised learning.

II. CLEnet Model Configuration

• Morphological Feature Extraction (CNN Branch): The noisy EEG input is processed by two parallel 1D-CNN streams with different kernel sizes to extract features at multiple scales.
• Temporal Feature Enhancement (EMA-1D Module): An improved Efficient Multi-Scale Attention (EMA-1D) module is embedded into the CNN. This module uses cross-dimensional interaction to preserve and enhance temporal dependencies in the feature maps, preventing their disruption during spatial feature extraction.
• Temporal Dynamics Modeling (LSTM Branch): The enhanced features are dimensionally reduced and fed into an LSTM network. The LSTM captures long-range temporal context in the signal, which is crucial for distinguishing between brain activity and artifacts.
• Signal Reconstruction: The outputs from the CNN and LSTM pathways are fused. A series of fully connected layers then decode this fused representation to reconstruct the clean EEG signal.

III. Model Training and Evaluation

• Loss Function: Train the model in an end-to-end manner using the Mean Squared Error (MSE) loss between the model's output and the ground-truth clean EEG signal.
• Optimization: Use the Adam optimizer to minimize the loss function.
• Comprehensive Evaluation: Assess the model's performance on a held-out test set using multiple metrics:
  • SNR and Correlation Coefficient (CC) to measure signal fidelity.
  • Relative Root Mean Square Error in both temporal (RRMSEt) and frequency (RRMSEf) domains.

Signaling Pathways and Workflow Visualizations

The following diagrams, generated with Graphviz DOT language, illustrate the core logical workflows and model architectures described in the protocols.

OPM-MEG Automated Artifact Removal Pipeline

CLEnet Hybrid Architecture for EEG Denoising

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

For researchers aiming to implement deep learning-based artifact removal, the following "research reagents"—datasets, software, and hardware—are essential.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Deep Learning-Based Neural Signal Denoising

Category	Reagent / Tool	Specifications / Typical Use	Key Function in Research
Benchmark Datasets	EEGdenoiseNet	Contains clean EEG, EMG, EOG; enables semi-synthetic data generation.	Standardized benchmarking and supervised training of denoising models. [43]
	AMBER Dataset	Combines EEG with synchronized video of facial expressions/body movements.	Provides rich contextual cues for analyzing and removing motion artifacts. [45]
Neuroimaging Hardware	OPM-MEG System	Wearable sensor array operating at room temperature.	Provides high-spatiotemporal-resolution data for developing next-gen MEG artifact removal. [10]
	High-Density EEG System	32+ channels; compatible with dry/wet electrodes.	Captures detailed spatial information crucial for spatial filtering and deep learning models.
Software & Algorithms	FastICA Algorithm	Blind Source Separation (BSS).	Preprocessing step to decompose signals for artifact identification or dataset creation. [10]
	PyTorch / TensorFlow	Deep learning frameworks with GPU acceleration.	Flexible implementation and training of complex hybrid architectures (CNN, RNN, Attention). [43] [44]
Model Architectures	CNN-LSTM-Attention Hybrids (e.g., CLEnet)	Combines spatial feature extraction, temporal modeling, and feature weighting.	End-to-end removal of multiple artifact types from multi-channel data. [43]
	Vision Transformer (ViT) / EEG Transformer	Adapted transformer architecture for sequential data.	Capturing long-range dependencies in neural signals for improved artifact modeling. [44]
Esomeprazole	Esomeprazole for Research|High-Purity PPIs	Explore high-purity Esomeprazole for research applications. This Proton Pump Inhibitor is for Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.	Bench Chemicals
Enkephalin-met, ala(2)-	Enkephalin-Met, Ala(2)- Research Chemical	Enkephalin-Met, Ala(2)- is a stable synthetic enkephalin analog for opioid receptor research. This product is For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals

The fidelity of neural signals is paramount in neurotechnology, where the accurate extraction of neural information from recordings contaminated by noise and artifacts enables advancements in basic neuroscience, clinical diagnostics, and therapeutic interventions. Artifacts—unwanted signals originating from non-neural sources such as electrical stimulation, muscle activity, or eye movements—can obscure the neural signals of interest, complicating interpretation and analysis. Traditional static filtering methods often prove inadequate, as they can remove neural signals alongside artifacts or fail to adapt to the non-stationary nature of neural data. Consequently, adaptive signal processing methods have emerged as a powerful alternative, capable of learning and adjusting to the specific statistical properties of both the signal and the noise in real-time or near-real-time. This document details three principal adaptive methodologies—Template Subtraction, Dictionary Learning, and Real-Time Processing—providing application notes and experimental protocols tailored for researchers and scientists engaged in neurotechnology signal processing research. These methods are integral to a broader thesis on improving the reliability of neural interfaces, forming a hierarchy of approaches from classic model-based techniques to modern data-driven and embedded solutions.

Template Subtraction

Core Principles and Applications

Template Subtraction is a model-driven adaptive method that removes artifacts by constructing a precise model of the artifact waveform—the "template"—and subtracting it from the recorded signal. Its primary strength lies in situations where the artifact has a consistent, stereotypical shape that can be reliably characterized. A key application, as demonstrated in cochlear implant (CI) research, is the isolation of the electrically evoked Frequency-Following Response (eFFR), a brainstem response that is otherwise completely masked by the large electrical stimulation artifact [46]. The method's success hinges on accurately modeling the artifact's morphology without distorting the underlying neural response, which shares similar temporal and spectral characteristics.

Performance Metrics

The table below summarizes the quantitative effectiveness of an advanced Template Subtraction method in recovering eFFRs from CI users across different stimulation rates [46].

Table 1: Performance of Template Subtraction in Isulating eFFRs in Cochlear Implant Users

Stimulation Pulse Rate (pps)	Artifact Reduction Efficacy	Neural Response (eFFR) Detectability	Key Metric for Success
128	High	Detected in most subjects	Significant reduction in stimulus artifact, revealing neural phase-locking.
163	High	Detected in most subjects	Robust phase-locking response observed post-subtraction.
198	High	Detected in most subjects	Successful artifact removal enabling brainstem response assessment.
233	High	Detected in most subjects	Maintained response detection at mid-to-high pulse rates.
268	High	Detected in most subjects	Effective isolation of neural activity from overlapping artifact.
303	High	Detected in most subjects (with individual variations)	Demonstrated the method's capability at very high pulse rates; individual differences in phase-locking ability were revealed.

Detailed Experimental Protocol: Template Subtraction for eFFR

Objective: To record and isolate the electrically evoked Frequency-Following Response (eFFR) from cochlear implant users using the Template Subtraction artifact removal method [46].

Materials:

• Cochlear implant system with research interface.
• EEG recording system with compatible electrodes.
• Stimulation and recording software (e.g., MATLAB-based custom software).

Procedure:

• Stimulation Setup:
  • Configure the CI to stimulate on the most apical electrode in a monopolar mode.
  • Generate biphasic, cathodic-first pulse trains at rates ranging from 128 to 303 pulses per second (pps). Present these rates in alternating 2.024-second epochs (e.g., Rate A: 128 pps, Rate B: 233 pps) to minimize loudness adaptation.
  • Set the stimulation level to the participant's Maximum Comfortable Loudness (MCL) for each rate.

• EEG Recording:

  • Apply a high-density EEG cap according to the 10-20 system. Use a sampling rate ≥ 10 kHz to adequately capture the artifact and response dynamics.
  • Record continuous EEG data synchronized with the stimulation triggers for a minimum of 384 epochs per pulse rate to ensure a high signal-to-noise ratio.

• Artifact Removal via Template Subtraction:

  • Artifact Template Construction: For each pulse, align the recorded EEG traces to the stimulus onset. Create an initial artifact template by averaging these aligned traces. The underlying neural response, being non-time-locked to the precise stimulus onset across trials, will average out.
  • Template Fitting and Subtraction: For each individual trial, fit the artifact template to the recorded artifact by adjusting for amplitude and latency jitter using a least-squares optimization. Subtract the fitted template from the recorded signal to yield the artifact-free neural response.

• Data Analysis:

  • Average the artifact-subtracted epochs for each pulse rate to enhance the eFFR.
  • Analyze the averaged waveform for the presence of a phase-locked response at the fundamental frequency of the stimulation pulse rate using frequency domain analysis (e.g., Fast Fourier Transform - FFT).

Workflow Diagram

Template Subtraction Workflow for eFFR Recovery

Dictionary Learning

Core Principles and Applications

Dictionary Learning (DL) is a data-driven, adaptive sparse coding technique that represents a signal as a linear combination of a few atoms from an overcomplete basis (the dictionary). In the context of artifact removal, the underlying assumption is that neural signals and artifacts possess distinct sparse representations. If a dictionary can be trained such that its atoms can sparsely represent either neural activity or artifacts, then artifacts can be removed by reconstructing the signal using only the atoms associated with neural activity. A significant advancement is subject-wise (sw) dictionary learning, which leverages multi-subject fMRI data to create a base dictionary of spatiotemporal components, which is then adaptively refined for an individual subject [47]. This approach increases the mean correlation of recovered signals by 14% while reducing computation time by 39% compared to previous methods [47]. Furthermore, DL has been successfully adapted for real-time EEG artifact removal in mobile brain imaging (MoBI), where it achieves an average SNR gain of 6.8 dB and retains 94.5% of ERP peak information with low latency [48].

Performance Metrics

Table 2: Performance of Dictionary Learning Frameworks for Neural Signal Processing

Method / Domain	Key Algorithm	Reported Performance Gain	Computational Efficiency
Subject-wise DL (swDL) for fMRI [47]	Sequential (swsDL) & Block (swbDL) DL	14% increase in mean correlation of recovered signals.	39% reduction in mean computation time vs. ACSD algorithm.
Real-time DL for EEG/MoBI [48]	Orthogonal Matching Pursuit (OMP) & K-SVD	6.8 dB average SNR gain; 94.5% ERP peak retention.	47 ms latency per 500 ms window; <40% CPU usage on ARM Cortex-A53.
Deep Unfolding (LRR-Unet) for EEG [49]	Unfolded Low-Rank Recovery (LRR) & U-Net	Superior quantitative metrics (e.g., PSD correlation) vs. ICA/wavelet; better downstream classification accuracy.	Avoids costly SVD; efficient network inference suitable for BCI.

Detailed Experimental Protocol: Subject-Wise Dictionary Learning for fMRI

Objective: To decompose a subject's fMRI data into a sparse linear combination of temporal and spatial components derived from a multi-subject base dictionary, enhancing the recovery of subject-specific and group-relevant neural dynamics [47].

Materials:

• Multi-subject fMRI dataset (resting-state or task-based).
• Computational infrastructure (High-performance CPU/GPU cluster).
• Software for sparse Blind Source Separation (BSS) and dictionary learning (e.g., custom MATLAB/Python scripts).

Procedure:

• Base Dictionary Construction:
  • Preprocess the multi-subject fMRI data (motion correction, normalization, etc.).
  • Apply a computationally efficient sparse spatiotemporal BSS method to the group data to extract a set of base temporal components (atoms) and their corresponding spatial maps. This forms the initial overcomplete base dictionary (Dbase) and base sparse code (Xbase).

• Subject-Wise Dictionary Adaptation:

  • For a new subject, use their fMRI data matrix (Y_sw) as the training data.
  • Solve the optimization problem to adapt the base matrices to the subject-wise data. The model can be formulated as:
    • ( \min{\text{D}, \text{X}} \left\Vert \text{Y} -\text{D}\text{X}\right\VertF^2 + \lambda \left\Vert \text{X} \right\Vert_1 )
    • Subject to ( \left\Vert \text{d}{k}\right\Vert2 = 1 ) for all atoms.
  • Implement the sw sequential DL (swsDL) or sw block DL (swbDL) algorithm, which updates each dictionary atom and its corresponding sparse code row jointly by solving a penalized rank-one error matrix approximation.

• Artifact Removal and Component Extraction:

  • The trained subject-wise dictionary (D_sw) will contain atoms representing both neural signals and artifacts.
  • Manually or automatically (based on known spatial/temporal fingerprints) identify and remove atoms corresponding to artifacts.
  • Reconstruct the "cleaned" fMRI data using the dictionary and sparse code, excluding the artifact-associated atoms.

• Validation:

  • Compare the spatial maps and time courses of the recovered components with ground truth or known neural networks (e.g., from independent functional localizers).
  • Quantify the improvement using correlation metrics and spatial sensitivity compared to standard single-subject decomposition methods.

Workflow Diagram

Subject-Wise Dictionary Learning for fMRI

Real-Time Processing

Core Principles and Applications

Real-time processing is a critical requirement for closed-loop brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), neuroprosthetics, and therapeutic interventions. The challenge is to perform high-fidelity artifact removal and neural feature extraction under strict latency, power, and computational constraints. Adaptive methods deployed in real-time must process signals on-the-fly with minimal delay. Emerging solutions include lightweight dictionary learning for mobile EEG [48] and deep unfolding networks like LRR-Unet [49], which transform iterative model-based algorithms into efficient, interpretable neural network architectures. Furthermore, the field of high-density brain-implantable devices necessitates extreme on-implant signal processing—such as spike detection and compression—to overcome the wireless data transmission bottleneck, as transmitting raw data from thousands of channels is currently infeasible [24]. These methods prioritize computational effectiveness and low power consumption while preserving crucial neural information.

Performance Metrics

Table 3: Performance of Real-Time Adaptive Processing Methods

Method / Platform	Primary Function	Real-Time Performance	Key Hardware Constraint Addressed
Lightweight DL on Embedded ARM [48]	EEG artifact rejection & reconstruction	47 ms latency per 500 ms window; >94% ERP retention.	Low CPU utilization (<40%) on mobile platform (ARM Cortex-A53).
LRR-Unet for EEG Denoising [49]	Ocular & EMG artifact removal	High denoising performance; improves downstream BCI classification accuracy.	Replaces costly SVD/optimization with efficient network modules.
On-Implant Spike Processing [24]	Spike detection, compression, & sorting for neural implants	Enables wireless streaming from 1000+ channels; real-time operation.	Drastically reduces data rate for transmission within limited power budget.

Detailed Experimental Protocol: Real-Time EEG Denoising with LRR-Unet

Objective: To remove ocular (EOG) and electromyographic (EMG) artifacts from EEG signals in real-time using an interpretable deep unfolding network, LRR-Unet, for improved performance in BCI applications [49].

Materials:

• EEG recording system (research-grade, e.g., 64-channel).
• Computing platform with GPU capability for low-latency inference (e.g., NVIDIA Jetson for embedded deployment).
• Pre-trained LRR-Unet model.

Procedure:

• Model Preparation (Offline):
  • Architecture Setup: Implement the LRR-Unet, which unfolds the iterative Low-Rank Recovery (LRR) algorithm. The network should consist of:
    • Net-D: A U-Net-like structure to approximate the extraction of clean, low-rank EEG signals.
    • Net-N: A convolutional network to approximate the extraction of sparse noise.
    • Net-R: A module to combine the outputs of Net-D and Net-N for iterative refinement.
  • Training: Train the model on a large-scale EEG dataset (e.g., EEGDenoiseNet) using a composite loss function that includes temporal MSE, spectral MSE, and Hjorth mobility.

• Real-Time Data Acquisition and Buffering:

  • Stream raw EEG data from the acquisition system into a data buffer.
  • Segment the continuous stream into overlapping windows (e.g., 2-second windows with a 100-millisecond stride) for sequential processing.

• Online Denoising:

  • Feed each incoming data window through the pre-trained LRR-Unet model.
  • The model will output the denoised EEG signal for that window in near-real-time. The processing time per window must be less than the window stride to avoid backlog.

• Downstream Application:

  • The cleaned EEG signal is immediately passed to the subsequent BCI application module, such as a motor imagery classifier or an ERP detector.
  • Monitor the system's end-to-end latency to ensure it meets the requirements for closed-loop interaction (typically < 200-300 ms).

Workflow Diagram

Real-Time EEG Denoising with LRR-Unet

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Materials and Tools for Adaptive Artifact Removal Research

Item Name	Function/Application	Example Use Case
Cochlear Implant Research Interface	Enables precise control over stimulation parameters and synchronization with external recorders.	Evoking and recording eFFRs for Template Subtraction protocols [46].
High-Density Microelectrode Arrays	Provides high-spatial-resolution recording of neural activity (spikes & LFPs).	Data source for on-implant real-time processing and dictionary learning in intracortical studies [24].
Sparse BSS Software Toolbox	Provides algorithms for blind source separation to initialize dictionary atoms.	Constructing base dictionaries from multi-subject fMRI data in swDL [47].
Embedded Computing Platform (e.g., ARM Cortex-A53)	A low-power, mobile computing platform for deploying real-time algorithms.	Running lightweight Dictionary Learning or LRR-Unet for mobile EEG (MoBI) [48] [49].
EEGDenoiseNet & BCI Competition IV Datasets	Publicly available, benchmarked datasets of EEG signals with and without artifacts.	Training and validating deep learning models like LRR-Unet for EEG denoising [49].
Keras TensorFlow with Custom Layers	A flexible deep learning framework allowing the creation of custom layers (e.g., SubWindowConv1D).	Implementing and training deep unfolding architectures such as EEGReXferNet [50].
Ethambutol Hydrochloride	Ethambutol Hydrochloride, CAS:1070-11-7, MF:C10H26Cl2N2O2, MW:277.23 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Genistein	Genistein, CAS:446-72-0, MF:C15H10O5, MW:270.24 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

In neurotechnology signal processing, the accurate isolation of neural signals from non-cerebral artifacts is paramount for both research and clinical applications. Artifacts originating from muscle activity (EMG), eye movements (EOG), cardiac activity (ECG), and environmental sources can significantly obscure genuine brain activity, leading to misinterpretation in brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), medical diagnostics, and pharmacological studies. Whereas single-technique approaches often face limitations in addressing the complex, overlapping nature of these artifacts, hybrid methodologies that synergistically combine multiple algorithms demonstrate superior performance in separating noise from signal while preserving critical neural information. This document outlines the application notes and experimental protocols for implementing these advanced hybrid approaches, providing researchers and drug development professionals with practical frameworks for enhanced electrophysiological data analysis.

The fundamental challenge in artifact removal lies in the overlapping spectral and temporal characteristics of neural signals and artifacts. Muscle artifacts, for instance, exhibit high amplitude with variable topographical distributions and span almost the entire EEG spectrum, making them particularly challenging to remove without distorting underlying brain activity. Hybrid methods address this by leveraging the complementary strengths of different mathematical frameworks—for example, combining blind source separation with deep learning or integrating temporal decomposition with spatial filtering—to achieve a cleaner separation than any single method could accomplish independently.

Hybrid Methodologies and Performance Analysis

Taxonomy of Hybrid Approaches

Hybrid artifact removal techniques can be categorized based on their underlying methodological integration. The most effective combinations typically pair a decomposition technique that separates signal components with a classification or regression method that identifies and removes artifact-contaminated elements.

Table 1: Classification of Hybrid Artifact Removal Methodologies

Hybrid Category	Component Techniques	Primary Applications	Key Advantages
Decomposition + Source Separation	VMD + CCA [51]	Muscle artifact removal from EEG	Retrieves cerebral components from artifact-dominated IMFs; effective for limited channels
Decomposition + Machine Learning	EEMD + ICA [51]	Single-channel EEG denoising	Handles non-stationary signals without pre-set basis functions
Deep Learning Fusion	CNN + LSTM [52]	SSVEP preservation during muscle artifact removal	Leverages temporal dependencies and spatial features; uses auxiliary EMG reference
Generative + Temporal Modeling	GAN + LSTM [11]	Multi-artifact removal (ocular, muscle, noise)	Adversarial training generates artifact-free signals; preserves temporal dynamics

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Rigorous evaluation of hybrid methods against traditional single-technique approaches demonstrates significant enhancements across multiple performance metrics. The following comparative analysis synthesizes results from controlled validation studies.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Comparison of Artifact Removal Techniques [52] [51] [11]

Methodology	SNR Improvement (dB)	Correlation Coefficient	Computational Load	SSVEP Preservation
ICA (Independent Component Analysis)	Moderate	0.72-0.85	Low	Partial
CCA (Canonical Correlation Analysis)	Moderate	0.75-0.82	Low	Partial
Linear Regression with Reference	Moderate	0.78-0.87	Low	Good
VMD-CCA (Hybrid)	High	0.89-0.94	Medium	Excellent
CNN-LSTM with EMG (Hybrid)	Very High	0.91-0.96	High	Excellent
GAN-LSTM (Hybrid)	Very High	0.90-0.95	High	N/A

Key findings from comparative studies indicate that the hybrid CNN-LSTM approach utilizing additional EMG reference signals demonstrates particularly excellent performance in removing muscle artifacts while preserving steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs), a crucial requirement for both visual system assessment and SSVEP-based BCIs [52]. Similarly, the VMD-CCA hybrid method shows robust performance in both single-channel and multichannel configurations, making it suitable for resource-constrained environments such as portable EEG systems and long-term monitoring applications [51].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: CNN-LSTM with EMG Reference for Muscle Artifact Removal

This protocol describes a validated methodology for removing muscle artifacts from EEG signals while preserving evoked responses, using a hybrid deep learning architecture with auxiliary EMG recordings [52].

Experimental Setup and Data Acquisition

• Participants: 24 healthy subjects
• Stimulus Presentation: Visual stimuli delivered via LED at specific frequencies to elicit SSVEPs
• Artifact Induction: Subjects perform strong jaw clenching during recording to induce muscle artifacts
• EEG Recording: Standard scalp electrodes placed according to the international 10-20 system
• Auxiliary EMG Recording: Facial and neck EMG electrodes placed to capture reference muscle activity
• Equipment Specifications:
  • EEG amplifier with minimum 500 Hz sampling rate
  • Bandpass filter: 1-70 Hz during acquisition
  • Synchronized EEG-EMG recording system

Signal Processing Workflow

Implementation Specifications

• CNN Architecture:

  • Input: Multiplexed EEG and EMG segments (500 ms windows)
  • Convolutional layers: 3 layers with increasing filters (32, 64, 128)
  • Kernel sizes: Temporal kernels (5, 3, 3) with ReLU activation
  • Pooling: Max pooling after each convolutional layer

• LSTM Architecture:

  • Sequence input: Feature sequences from CNN output
  • LSTM layers: 2 bidirectional layers with 64 units each
  • Dropout: 0.2 between layers to prevent overfitting

• Training Parameters:

  • Loss function: Combined MSE and spectral divergence
  • Optimizer: Adam with learning rate 0.001
  • Batch size: 32
  • Epochs: 100 with early stopping

• Validation Method:

  • Cross-validation: Leave-one-subject-out
  • Performance metrics: SNR improvement, correlation coefficient, SSVEP amplitude preservation

Protocol 2: VMD-CCA for Muscle Artifact Removal

This protocol outlines a hybrid approach combining Variational Mode Decomposition (VMD) and Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) for muscle artifact removal without requiring auxiliary sensors [51].

Signal Processing Workflow

Implementation Specifications

• VMD Parameters:

  • Decomposition modes: 8-10 intrinsic mode functions (IMFs)
  • Bandwidth constraint: 0.05-0.15 for neural signals
  • Convergence tolerance: 1e-7
  • Maximum iterations: 500

• Artifact IMF Identification:

  • Threshold: Autocorrelation value < 0.4 indicates artifact dominance
  • Selection: IMFs with lowest autocorrelation values chosen for further processing
  • Percentage: Typically 30-40% of total IMFs selected as artifact-dominated

• CCA Processing:

  • Input: Concatenated artifact-dominated IMFs from all channels
  • Component ordering: Autocorrelation values decrease sequentially
  • Artifact rejection: First 2-3 components identified as artifact sources
  • EEG recovery: Remaining components retained for reconstruction

• Validation Framework:

  • Dataset: 20 healthy subjects with 19-channel EEG
  • Ground truth: Visual inspection of muscle artifact-free epochs
  • Performance metrics: RMSE, correlation coefficient, visual quality assessment

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Hybrid Artifact Removal Experiments

Category/Item	Specifications	Function/Purpose
EEG Acquisition System	>500 Hz sampling rate, 16+ channels, bandpass filter 1-100 Hz	Records neural activity with sufficient temporal resolution and dynamic range
EMG Reference Electrodes	Bipolar placement on facial/neck muscles (masseter, trapezius)	Provides reference signal for muscle artifact identification and removal
Visual Stimulation System	Programmable LED array with precise frequency control	Elicits SSVEPs for signal preservation validation during artifact removal
Computational Framework	MATLAB with Signal Processing Toolbox or Python with SciPy/NumPy	Implements hybrid algorithms and performance evaluation metrics
Validation Datasets	Semi-synthetic data (clean EEG + real artifacts) and real task data	Enables controlled algorithm validation and performance benchmarking
Deep Learning Libraries	TensorFlow/PyTorch with GPU acceleration for CNN-LSTM models	Facilitates training and deployment of complex hybrid deep learning architectures
Gentamicin	Gentamicin, CAS:1403-66-3, MF:C21H43N5O7, MW:477.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Swertianin	Swertianin

Implementation Considerations for Research Applications

When implementing hybrid artifact removal approaches in research settings, several practical considerations emerge. For pharmacological studies and clinical trial applications where signal integrity is paramount, the CNN-LSTM approach with EMG reference provides superior artifact removal while preserving neurophysiological signals of interest, though at higher computational cost. For longitudinal monitoring or portable EEG applications, the VMD-CCA method offers a favorable balance of performance and computational efficiency without requiring additional sensors.

Critical implementation factors include the trade-off between artifact removal efficacy and signal distortion, with hybrid methods consistently demonstrating advantages in preserving evoked potentials and oscillatory neural activity compared to single-technique approaches. Additionally, researchers should consider the scalability of these methods to high-density EEG systems and their adaptability to various artifact types beyond muscle activity, including ocular, cardiac, and movement-related artifacts.

The continued advancement of hybrid methodologies—particularly through integration of foundation models pretrained on large-scale neural datasets—promises further enhancements in artifact removal performance and generalization across diverse participant populations and recording conditions [53].

Application-Specific Implementations for EEG, ECoG, and Intracortical Recordings

Neurotechnologies for recording brain signals, including electroencephalography (EEG), electrocorticography (ECoG), and intracortical microelectrode arrays, are fundamental tools for neuroscience research and clinical applications. The utility of these signals is often limited by artifacts and noise, making advanced signal processing a critical component of the data pipeline. Application-specific implementations are designed to optimize the trade-offs between data quality, power consumption, and decoding performance for particular use cases. This application note synthesizes current methodologies and protocols for implementing artifact removal and signal processing techniques across these three recording modalities, providing a structured framework for researchers and drug development professionals.

Table 1: Comparison of Key Neural Recording Modalities

Modality	Spatial Resolution	Temporal Resolution	Invasiveness	Primary Applications	Key Artifact Challenges
EEG	Low	High (millisecond)	Non-invasive	Brain-State Monitoring, Sleep Studies, Epilepsy Detection [54]	Sensitive to physiological (blinks, muscle) and non-physiological (line noise) artifacts [54]
ECoG	High	High	Semi-invasive (subdural) [54]	Epilepsy Surgery Tailoring, Functional Mapping [55]	Cardiac contamination, motion artifacts [56]
Intracortical	Very High	Very High	Invasive	Motor Prosthetics, Deep Brain Stimulation, Fundamental Neuroscience [57] [58]	Motion artifacts, myoelectric noise, system noise in freely moving subjects [58]

Application-Specific Signal Processing and Protocols

The choice of signal processing strategy is heavily influenced by the specific recording modality, the nature of the target signal, and the constraints of the application, such as the need for real-time operation in implantable devices.

EEG: Medical Monitoring and Diagnosis

EEG is widely used for clinical monitoring and diagnosis due to its non-invasiveness and high temporal resolution. The primary challenge is its low signal-to-noise ratio and high susceptibility to artifacts.

Key Implementation: Real-Time Seizure Detection with Power-Efficient Recording For long-term monitoring implants, such as those for epilepsy, power efficiency is paramount. Recent research demonstrates resolution reconfiguration, a system-level optimization that reduces power consumption of the analog front-end (AFE) by dynamically lowering the recording resolution on less important EEG channels [59].

• Principle: Machine learning decoders assign an "importance score" to each channel. High-importance channels are recorded at high resolution, while low-importance channels are recorded at lower resolution, saving power without significant loss in decoding accuracy [59].
• Quantitative Data: In a seizure detection task using the CHB-MIT dataset, this approach achieved an average F₁-score of 0.7 while saving 8.7x power compared to a traditional full-resolution array and 1.6x power compared to simple channel selection [59].

Table 2: EEG Application - Seizure Detection Power Optimization

Parameter	Traditional Array	Channel Selection	Resolution Reconfiguration
Power Consumption	Baseline	~6.1x lower than baseline [59]	~8.7x lower than baseline [59]
Decoder F₁-Score	~0.8 (Baseline) [59]	Maintained with <5% degradation [59]	Maintained with <5% degradation [59]
Key Advantage	Maximum signal fidelity	Linear power reduction	Super-linear power reduction; records from full array [59]

Experimental Protocol: Seizure Detection Decoder and Power Optimization

• Data Acquisition: Acquire scalp EEG data using a standard clinical system (e.g., 10-20 international system) at a sampling rate ≥256 Hz.
• Preprocessing:
  • Apply a band-pass filter (e.g., 0.5-70 Hz).
  • Remove line noise with a notch filter (e.g., 50/60 Hz).
  • Perform artifact removal using techniques like Independent Component Analysis (ICA) to isolate and remove components corresponding to eye blinks and muscle activity [54].
• Feature Extraction: For each channel, extract time-frequency features (e.g., power in delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma bands) over short, overlapping epochs (e.g., 2-second windows with 1-second overlap).
• Decoder Training: Train a logistic regression or neural network classifier using the features to distinguish between ictal (seizure) and interictal (non-seizure) epochs.
• Channel Importance & Resolution Assignment:
  • Compute channel importance scores based on the decoder's weights or a separate feature importance analysis.
  • Map importance scores to AFE resolution settings (e.g., high-importance: 10-bit, low-importance: 6-bit), ensuring the performance degradation does not exceed a pre-defined threshold (e.g., 5% drop in F₁-score) [59].

Diagram 1: Workflow for Power-Optimized EEG Seizure Detection System

ECoG: Intraoperative Mapping and High-Fidelity Decoding

ECoG offers a superior signal-to-noise ratio compared to EEG and is critical for surgical guidance and advanced brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). Artifact removal is essential for identifying delicate biomarkers.

Key Implementation: Cardiac Artifact Removal for Clinical ECoG ECoG systems with electronics near the chest are highly susceptible to cardiac contamination. A recent study systematically compared three artifact removal techniques in an offline setting [56].

• Principle: Spatial and blind source separation techniques are used to isolate and remove the electrocardiogram (ECG) artifact from the neural signal.
• Quantitative Data: The study found that Independent Component Analysis (ICA) with automated ECG channel selection provided the most improved signal-to-artifact ratio, though it was the most computationally intensive. Template-Based Removal (TBR) was better at preserving underlying neural data in regions unaffected by the artifact [56].

Key Implementation: High-Density ECoG for Epilepsy Surgery High-density (HD) ECoG grids (e.g., 64 electrodes with 5 mm spacing) provide greater spatial resolution than standard low-density (LD) grids, enabling the detection of focal epileptic events that would otherwise be missed [55].

• Principle: The higher electrode count allows for precise localization of spike onsets and the recording of highly focal high-frequency oscillations (HFOs), which are specific biomarkers of epileptogenic tissue [55].
• Quantitative Data: HD grids detected focal fast ripples (FRs, 250-500 Hz) that occurred on only one or two channels in 46.7% of cases. In 58.3% of cases, the spike-onset location identified with the HD grid might have been localized differently with a standard LD grid, potentially altering the surgical plan [55].

Table 3: ECoG Application - Cardiac Artifact Removal Technique Comparison

Method	Principle	Computational Load	Performance	Best Use-Case
Common Average Referencing (CAR)	Subtracts the average signal of all channels from each channel [58].	Low	Decreased post-artifact RMS amplitudes [56].	Initial preprocessing; simple noise profiles.
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	Separates mixed signals into statistically independent components, allowing artifact component removal [56] [53].	High	Highest signal-to-artifact ratio improvement [56].	Preferred for effective artifact removal when compute resources allow.
Template-Based Removal (TBR)	Averages artifact waveforms (e.g., ECG) to create a template, which is then subtracted from the signal [56].	Medium	Best preservation of underlying signal in non-artifact regions [56].	When preserving pristine neural signal integrity is the top priority.

Experimental Protocol: ICA for Cardiac Artifact Removal in ECoG

• Data Acquisition: Simultaneously record ECoG and a dedicated ECG channel. A sampling rate of ≥2000 Hz is recommended to capture high-frequency oscillations [55].
• Preprocessing: Apply a common average reference (CAR) or a band-pass filter (e.g., 0.5-300 Hz) as an initial preprocessing step.
• ECG Channel Selection: Automatically or manually select the ECG channel as the reference for artifact source identification [56].
• ICA Decomposition: Perform ICA on the multichannel ECoG data to decompose it into independent components (ICs).
• Artifact Component Identification: Correlate ICs with the ECG reference channel. Components with high correlation are identified as cardiac artifacts.
• Signal Reconstruction: Remove the identified artifact components and reconstruct the "clean" ECoG signal from the remaining components [56].

Intracortical Recordings: Brain-Machine Interfaces and Kinetic Decoding

Intracortical recordings provide the highest resolution signals for decoding movement intention and other detailed neural processes, but are highly vulnerable to artifacts in freely moving subjects.

Key Implementation: Adaptive Artifact Removal for Force Decoding A study on freely moving rats introduced a weighted Common Average Referencing (wCAR) algorithm to adaptively remove motion and other artifacts for accurate decoding of a continuous force signal [58].

• Principle: Standard CAR assumes common noise is distributed equally across all channels. wCAR uses a Kalman filter to adaptively estimate channel-specific weights for the common noise, accounting for differences in amplitude and polarity [58].
• Quantitative Data: The wCAR method improved the accuracy of force decoding by 33% in terms of R² value compared to standard CAR. In simulation, it effectively reconstructed the original signal with an average R² > 0.5 for input SNRs higher than -10 dB [58].

Experimental Protocol: Force Decoding with Adaptive Artifact Removal

• Data Acquisition: Record intracortical signals (e.g., Local Field Potentials - LFP, and Multi-Unit Activity - MUA) from a multi-electrode array implanted in the motor cortex, synchronized with a force sensor.
• Spatial Filtering with wCAR:
  • Model the recorded signal záµ¢(t) at channel i as: záµ¢(t) = sáµ¢(t) + wáµ¢(t)áµ€n(t), where sáµ¢(t) is the clean signal, n(t) is the common noise with autoregressive structure, and wáµ¢(t) is the channel-specific weight vector [58].
  • Employ a Kalman filter to adaptively estimate the weight vector wáµ¢(t) for each channel sample-by-sample.
  • Subtract the weighted common noise to obtain the cleaned signal [58].
• Feature Extraction: From the cleaned LFP and MUA signals, extract features in specific frequency bands (e.g., LFP: 1-4 Hz delta; MUA: 300-3000 Hz).
• Decoder Training: Train a partial least squares (PLS) regression model or a neural network using the extracted features to predict the continuous force signal [58].

Diagram 2: Intracortical Force Decoding with Adaptive Filtering

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Materials and Reagents for Implementation

Item	Function/Description	Example Application
High-Density ECoG Grid	Silicone grid with 64 electrodes (5 mm inter-electrode distance) for high-resolution cortical mapping [55].	Precisely localizing epileptogenic zone and functional areas during surgery [55].
Intracortical Multi-Electrode Array	Microfabricated array of electrodes for recording single-unit and multi-unit activity and LFPs from within the brain tissue [57].	Decoding motor commands for brain-machine interfaces and studying circuit-level neural computation [58].
Programmable Amplifier/DAQ System	System capable of high-sampling-rate (≥2 kHz) data acquisition from multiple channels, often with real-time processing capabilities [55].	Capturing high-frequency oscillations (HFOs) and performing online artifact removal or decoding.
Ad-Tech FG64C-SP05X-000 Grid	Specific 8x8 ECoG grid with 2 mm platinum electrodes and 5 mm spacing [55].	Clinical and research intraoperative ECoG recording [55].
Kalman Filter Algorithm	Adaptive algorithm for real-time estimation of time-varying parameters in a state-space model [58].	Powering the weighted CAR filter for dynamic artifact removal in intracortical recordings [58].
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	A blind source separation algorithm for decomposing multichannel signals into statistically independent sources [56] [53].	Isolating and removing physiological artifacts like ECG from ECoG signals [56].
Geraniol	Geraniol | High-Purity Terpene for Research
GI254023X	GI254023X, CAS:260264-93-5, MF:C21H33N3O4, MW:391.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Optimization Strategies and Troubleshooting for Real-World Applications

Parameter Tuning and Algorithm Selection Guidelines

Electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) are fundamental tools in neurotechnology, providing high temporal resolution for monitoring brain activity in both clinical and research settings. However, these signals are consistently contaminated by physiological and non-physiological artifacts that can compromise data integrity and interpretation. The expansion of EEG applications into wearable devices for real-world monitoring has further intensified artifact management challenges due to uncontrolled environments, motion conditions, and dry electrode usage [9] [2]. This document provides comprehensive parameter tuning and algorithm selection guidelines for artifact removal in neurotechnology, specifically framed within the context of advanced signal processing research.

Algorithm Selection Framework

Comparative Analysis of Artifact Removal Algorithms

Table 1: Performance Characteristics of Primary Artifact Removal Algorithms

Algorithm Category	Best-Suited Artifact Types	Key Parameters Requiring Tuning	Computational Complexity	Notable Strengths	Primary Limitations
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	Ocular, Cardiac [9] [10]	Number of components, decomposition algorithm (FastICA, Infomax), rejection threshold [10]	Medium to High	Effective source separation, preserves neural signals	Requires multiple channels, manual component inspection often needed [9]
Wavelet Transform	Ocular, Muscular [9] [2]	Wavelet family, decomposition levels, threshold selection method	Low to Medium	Adaptive time-frequency analysis, works with single-channel data	Complex parameter selection, may distort neural signals if improperly tuned
Deep Learning (CLEnet)	Mixed artifacts (EMG, EOG, ECG), Unknown artifacts [43]	Network depth, kernel sizes, attention mechanisms, learning rate	High (training) Medium (inference)	End-to-end removal, adapts to multiple artifact types, handles multi-channel data	Requires large training datasets, extensive hyperparameter optimization [43]
Auto-Adaptive Methods (ASR)	Ocular, Movement, Instrumental [9] [2]	Sliding window size, burst criterion, cutoff standard deviations	Medium	Real-time capability, adjusts to changing signal statistics	Performance varies with data quality and parameter selection
Channel Attention Mechanisms	Ocular, Cardiac (in MEG) [10]	Correlation threshold (RDC), pooling operations (GAP/GMP), feature weighting	High	High accuracy (98.52% reported), automated operation	Requires reference signals, complex architecture [10]

Artifact-Specific Algorithm Recommendations

Table 2: Algorithm Selection Guide by Artifact Type

Artifact Category	Recommended Primary Algorithm	Alternative Algorithms	Critical Performance Metrics	Domain-Specific Considerations
Ocular Artifacts (EOG)	Wavelet Transform + Thresholding [9] [2]	ICA with reference EOG, ASR	Selectivity (63% typical), Accuracy (71% typical) [9]	High-amplitude, frontal dominance; preserve frontal neural signals
Muscular Artifacts (EMG)	Deep Learning (NovelCNN, CLEnet) [9] [43]	Wavelet Transform, ASR	Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSE) [43]	Broad spectral content; minimal frequency overlap with neural signals enables better separation
Cardiac Artifacts (ECG)	ICA with reference ECG [10]	Deep Learning (CLEnet), Adaptive Filtering	Correlation Coefficient (CC), Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) [43]	Periodic nature; reference signals significantly improve performance
Motion Artifacts	ASR-based pipelines [9] [2]	Accelerometer-based methods, Deep Learning	Accuracy, Selectivity [9]	Particularly relevant for wearable EEG; auxiliary sensors (IMUs) beneficial but underutilized
Mixed/Unknown Artifacts	CLEnet with EMA-1D [43]	Multi-stage pipelines, Hybrid approaches	SNR, CC, RRMSE (temporal and frequency domains) [43]	Common in real-world applications; requires robust, generalizable methods
Instrumental Artifacts	ASR-based pipelines [9] [2]	Notch filtering, Regression methods	Hardware efficiency metrics	Caused by dry electrodes, reduced scalp coverage in wearable systems [9]

Parameter Tuning Protocols

Deep Learning Architecture Optimization (CLEnet)

CLEnet represents an advanced deep learning approach integrating dual-scale CNN, LSTM, and an improved EMA-1D (One-Dimensional Efficient Multi-Scale Attention Mechanism) for artifact removal [43]. The parameter tuning protocol involves three experimental stages:

Stage 1: Morphological Feature Extraction and Temporal Feature Enhancement

• Implement two parallel convolutional streams with kernel sizes of 3 and 15 to capture short and long-range temporal features
• Embed EMA-1D modules after each convolutional block to enhance cross-dimensional interactions
• Apply batch normalization with momentum parameter of 0.9 and ReLU activation functions
• Optimize channel attention weights through joint GAP (Global Average Pooling) and GMP (Global Max Pooling) operations

Stage 2: Temporal Feature Extraction

• Reduce feature dimensionality using fully connected layers with dropout rate of 0.3
• Process sequences through LSTM layers with 128 hidden units and tanh activation
• Set initial learning rate to 0.001 with adaptive reduction on plateau (factor=0.5, patience=10 epochs)

Stage 3: EEG Reconstruction

• Flatten features and reconstruct through fully connected layers matching original signal dimensions
• Use Mean Squared Error (MSE) as loss function with Adam optimizer (β1=0.9, β2=0.999)
• Train for maximum 200 epochs with early stopping (patience=25 epochs) [43]

ICA-Based Artifact Removal Protocol

For ocular and cardiac artifact removal using ICA:

Data Preprocessing Parameters

• Apply band-pass filtering (1.5-40 Hz) to remove drift and high-frequency noise [10]
• Segment data into 10-second epochs for stable covariance estimation
• Utilize FastICA algorithm with logcosh contrast function and maximum 1000 iterations

Component Identification and Rejection

• Compute Randomized Dependence Coefficient (RDC) between independent components and reference signals
• Set correlation threshold at 0.7 for automatic artifact component identification [10]
• For manual inspection: reject components with frontal scalp topography (ocular) or periodic activation matching cardiac rhythm

Reconstruction and Validation

• Reconstruct signal after component removal
• Quantify performance using SNR improvement and correlation with reference signals

Wavelet-Based Artifact Removal Protocol

For ocular and muscular artifacts using wavelet transforms:

Decomposition Parameters

• Select symlet wavelet family (sym4) for compatibility with EEG morphology
• Perform 8-level decomposition to capture relevant frequency bands
• Apply adaptive thresholding using rigorous SURE (Stein's Unbiased Risk Estimate) method

Threshold Optimization

• Implement level-dependent thresholding with multiplicative factors of 1.2 for low frequencies and 0.8 for high frequencies
• Use soft thresholding for muscular artifacts to minimize signal distortion
• Apply hard thresholding for ocular artifacts to preserve sharp transitions

Performance Validation

• Calculate RRMSE in temporal (RRMSEt) and frequency (RRMSEf) domains against clean reference [43]
• Verify preservation of neural oscillations in alpha (8-13 Hz) and beta (14-30 Hz) bands

Experimental Workflow Visualization

Artifact Removal Experimental Workflow

Advanced Architecture Visualization

CLEnet Architecture for Artifact Removal

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Tool Category	Specific Tool/Resource	Function/Purpose	Implementation Details
Reference Datasets	EEGdenoiseNet [43]	Provides semi-synthetic data with clean EEG and artifact components	Combine single-channel EEG with EOG, EMG, ECG at specific SNR ratios
Computational Frameworks	TensorFlow/PyTorch	Deep learning model development and training	Implement CLEnet with dual-scale CNN, LSTM, and EMA-1D modules [43]
Signal Processing Tools	FastICA [10]	Blind source separation for artifact component identification	Decompose signals into independent components with logcosh contrast function
Reference Sensors	OPM-MEG sensors [10]	Record ocular and cardiac magnetic signals as artifact references	Position two additional sensors near eyes and heart for magnetic reference signals
Performance Metrics	SNR, CC, RRMSEt, RRMSEf [43]	Quantitative evaluation of artifact removal performance	Calculate metrics against clean reference signals for algorithm validation
Wavelet Toolboxes	PyWavelets, MATLAB Wavelet Toolbox	Multi-resolution analysis for artifact removal	Implement sym4 wavelet with level-dependent thresholding
Data Collection Tools	Wearable EEG systems (<16 channels) [9] [2]	Ecological valid data acquisition with dry electrodes	Collect data in real-world environments with motion artifacts
Epicatechin	(-)-Epicatechin	High-purity (-)-Epicatechin for research. Explore its applications in neuroscience, cardiovascular, and metabolic studies. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.	Bench Chemicals

Performance Benchmarking and Validation

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Table 4: Performance Metrics and Benchmark Values Across Algorithms

Algorithm	Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)	Correlation Coefficient (CC)	RRMSE (Temporal)	RRMSE (Frequency)	Computational Time	Optimal Channel Count
CLEnet (Mixed Artifacts)	11.498 dB [43]	0.925 [43]	0.300 [43]	0.319 [43]	High (training) Medium (inference)	1-32 channels [43]
ICA (Ocular)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Medium	>16 channels [9]
Wavelet Transform (Muscular)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Low	1 channel [9]
Channel Attention (OPM-MEG)	Significantly improved [10]	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	High	Modular sensor arrays [10]
ASR (Movement)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Medium	<16 channels [9]

Validation Protocols

Reference-Based Validation

• Utilize semi-synthetic datasets with known clean EEG and artifact components [43]
• Employ statistical measures (SNR, CC) to compare against ground truth
• Apply RRMSE in both temporal and frequency domains to assess distortion

Real-World Performance Assessment

• Test on experimentally collected datasets with natural artifacts [43]
• Validate preservation of neural responses through event-related potentials/fields [10]
• Assess generalization across subjects and recording sessions

Comparative Analysis

• Benchmark new algorithms against established methods (ICA, wavelet, ASR)
• Evaluate across multiple artifact types and signal-to-noise conditions
• Assess computational efficiency for real-time application potential

Effective parameter tuning and algorithm selection are critical for successful artifact removal in neurotechnology applications. These guidelines provide a structured framework for researchers to select, implement, and optimize artifact removal strategies based on specific experimental requirements, artifact types, and signal characteristics. The integration of traditional and deep learning approaches offers complementary strengths for addressing the diverse artifact challenges in both controlled laboratory and real-world environments.

Computational Complexity Management for Real-Time Processing

The evolution of neurotechnology, particularly in the domain of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and brain-implantable devices, is fundamentally constrained by the challenge of performing sophisticated neural signal processing under strict real-time, power, and size limitations [60] [24]. As the field advances towards high-density neural recording microelectrode arrays with thousands of parallel channels, the volume of data generated poses a significant bottleneck [24]. The core dilemma lies in the "recording density-transmission bandwidth" trade-off, where the raw data from these high-channel-count devices cannot be wirelessly transmitted within the allocated radio spectrum and implantable power budget [24]. Consequently, effective computational complexity management is not merely an engineering optimization but a critical enabler for the next generation of clinical and research neurotechnologies. This document outlines application notes and experimental protocols for managing computational complexity, specifically focusing on artifact removal within real-time neural signal processing pipelines for brain-implantable devices.

The Real-Time Processing Paradigm in Neurotechnology

Real-time data processing is defined by its stringent latency requirements, demanding data handling and analysis within milliseconds to seconds of its generation [61]. This contrasts with batch processing, which operates on data aggregated over longer periods. In the context of neurotechnology, real-time processing is essential for closed-loop therapeutic systems, such as those that detect seizure biomarkers and deliver responsive neurostimulation, or for brain-controlled prosthetic limbs that require instantaneous feedback [24] [62].

The table below summarizes the key data processing paradigms and their relevance to neurotechnology.

Table 1: Comparison of Data Processing Paradigms for Neurotechnology Applications

Parameter	Real-Time Processing	Near Real-Time Processing	Batch Processing
Latency	Milliseconds to seconds [61]	Seconds to minutes [61]	Hours or days [61]
Cost	Higher (specialized infrastructure) [61]	Moderate [61]	Lower [61]
Technical Complexity	High (requires streaming architectures, fault-tolerance) [61]	Moderate [61]	Lower [61]
Neurotechnology Application	Closed-loop deep brain stimulation, motor prosthetics [62] [63]	Offline analysis of neural recordings, some research BCIs	Historical data analysis, long-term trend studies

A generalized workflow for real-time processing involves data collection, processing, storage, and distribution [61]. For brain implants, this translates to:

• Data Collection: Neural signals are acquired from a microelectrode array and conditioned through analog front-ends [24].
• Data Processing: The digitized signals undergo on-implant processing (e.g., artifact removal, spike detection, compression) [24].
• Data Storage/Transmission: Processed data is either stored briefly or immediately transmitted via a wireless telemetry link [24].

Core Computational Challenges in Neural Signal Processing

The On-Implant Processing Imperative

The shift from prototypes to clinically viable and consumer-ready BCIs is driving a massive increase in data density. The global BCI market is projected to grow from $1.27 billion in 2025 to $2.11 billion by 2030 [60]. This growth is fueled by devices with increasingly high channel counts, now reaching arrays of 1,000 to 10,000 electrodes [24]. Transmitting raw data from these arrays is infeasible due to bandwidth and power constraints of wireless links (e.g., RF, UWB, ultrasonic) [24]. Therefore, on-implant signal processing for data reduction is not optional but a fundamental requirement. The primary technical requirements for this processing are [24]:

• Computational Accuracy: Preserving crucial neural information (e.g., spike shapes, timing) while removing redundancies.
• Hardware Efficiency: Ultra-low power consumption and minimal circuit footprint.
• Real-Time Operation: Processing data streams with minimal latency to enable closed-loop control.

The Artifact Removal Problem

Artifacts are interfering signals originating from non-neural sources, such as subject motion, physiological activity (EOG, ECG, EMG), or environmental noise [64]. They can obscure underlying neural activity, leading to mistakes in interpretation and degrading the performance of BCIs [64]. The table below classifies common artifacts and their properties.

Table 2: Classification and Properties of Common Neural Signal Artifacts

Artifact Category	Origin	Spectral Characteristics	Spatial Appearance	Temporal Pattern
Electrooculographic (EOG)	Eye movements [64]	Low-frequency (< 5 Hz) [65]	Global [64]	Irregular [64]
Electromyographic (EMG)	Muscle activity [64]	Broadband (20-300 Hz) [65]	Local or Global [64]	Irregular [64]
Electrocardiographic (ECG)	Heartbeat [43]	-	-	Periodic [64]
Motion Artifacts	Electrode movement [64]	-	Local or Global [64]	Irregular [64]
Stimulation Artifacts	Therapeutic neurostimulation [62]	-	-	Periodic [62]

Algorithmic Strategies for Complexity-Managed Artifact Removal

A spectrum of algorithms exists, offering a trade-off between computational complexity and removal efficacy.

Traditional and Lightweight Signal Processing Methods

These methods are often favored for on-implant implementation due to their relatively lower computational demands.

• Stationary Wavelet Transform (SWT) with Filtering: SWT provides translation invariance, leading to better signal reconstruction compared to the Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) [64]. A proposed method uses SWT to separate artifactual components, applies a modified universal threshold to the wavelet coefficients, and uses band-pass (150-400 Hz) and high-pass (5 kHz) filtering to separate spikes from high-frequency artifacts before reconstructing the signal with Inverse SWT [64]. This approach demonstrates lower computational complexity than Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT) while maintaining high accuracy [64].
• Period-based Artifact Reconstruction and Removal Method (PARRM): Specifically designed for periodic stimulation artifacts, PARRM leverages the exact known period of neurostimulation to construct a high-fidelity template of the artifact, which is then subtracted from the recorded signal [62]. Its advantages are superior signal recovery and low complexity, making it suitable for future on-device implementation [62].

Deep Learning and Advanced Architectures

Deep Learning (DL) models offer high performance and adaptability but typically at a higher computational cost, though optimizations are making them more feasible.

• CLEnet: This novel architecture integrates a dual-scale Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and an improved 1D Efficient Multi-Scale Attention mechanism (EMA-1D) [43]. The CNN extracts multi-scale morphological features, the LSTM captures temporal dependencies, and the attention mechanism enhances critical features [43]. It is designed for end-to-end removal of multiple artifact types (EMG, EOG, ECG) from multi-channel EEG data, addressing a limitation of earlier models tailored to specific artifacts [43].
• Other DL Approaches: Models like 1D-ResCNN and Transformer-based EEGDNet have shown success, but often specialize in specific artifact types (e.g., EEGDNet excels on EOG) [43].

Neuromorphic Computing

Neuromorphic computing presents a paradigm shift by co-locating memory and processing, using event-based spiking neural networks (SNNs) to mimic brain-like efficiency [63]. These architectures are inherently low-power and low-latency, making them ideal for implantable devices. Neuromorphic algorithms can implement adaptive filtering, spike sorting, and artifact removal directly on specialized chips (e.g., Loihi, BrainScaleS) [63], potentially outperforming traditional methods in efficiency for real-time tasks.

Experimental Protocols for Algorithm Benchmarking

To ensure fair comparison and guide algorithm selection, standardized benchmarking is crucial.

Protocol 1: Benchmarking on Semi-Synthetic Data

This protocol evaluates an algorithm's core performance under controlled conditions.

• Dataset Creation:
  • Clean EEG Base: Use established, artifact-free neural signal databases (e.g., from EEGdenoiseNet [43]).
  • Artifact Addition: Synthesize contaminated data by adding recorded artifact templates (e.g., EOG, EMG) to the clean EEG with random amplitudes, durations, and latencies [64] [43]. This allows for a known ground truth.
• Performance Metrics:
  • ΔSNR (Delta Signal-to-Noise Ratio): Improvement in SNR after artifact removal. Measures artifact reduction [64].
  • CC (Correlation Coefficient): Correlation between the cleaned signal and the original clean signal. Measures signal preservation [43].
  • RRMSE (Relative Root Mean Square Error): Error in temporal (t) and frequency (f) domains between cleaned and original signal [43].
  • Computational Latency & Power Consumption: Measure processing time and energy use per data segment on the target hardware.

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for Experimental Benchmarking

Research Reagent / Material	Function in Protocol
Public EEG datasets (e.g., EEGdenoiseNet [43], SEED [65])	Provides clean baseline neural signals for creating semi-synthetic test data.
Artifact templates (EOG, EMG, ECG)	Used to contaminate clean EEG signals in a controlled manner for algorithm validation [64].
High-density Microelectrode Array (in-vivo)	For acquiring real neural data with artifacts in animal models or humans [24].
Neuromorphic Hardware (e.g., Loihi [63])	Platform for deploying and testing the energy efficiency and latency of algorithms.
Signal Processing Environments (MATLAB, Python with PyTorch/TensorFlow)	For implementation, simulation, and initial validation of artifact removal algorithms.

Protocol 2: Validation on Real In-Vivo Neural Recordings

This protocol tests algorithm performance with real-world, complex artifacts.

• Data Acquisition: Record neural data using high-density microelectrode arrays implanted in animal models (e.g., rat, monkey) or humans [64]. Data should be collected during tasks that induce common artifacts (e.g., motion, blinking).
• Ground Truth Estimation: Since a perfect ground truth is unavailable, use expert annotation to mark artifact-free segments or employ a consensus result from multiple state-of-the-art algorithms for comparison.
• Performance Evaluation: In addition to the metrics in Protocol 1, use application-specific benchmarks. For a BCI, this could be the change in classification accuracy of neural intent. For a closed-loop stimulator, it is the accuracy of biomarker detection [62].

Visualization of Processing Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the logical flow of a real-time processing system and the core optimization strategies.

Real-Time Neural Signal Processing Workflow

Computational Complexity Management Framework

Managing computational complexity is the cornerstone of realizing the full potential of next-generation neurotechnology. Effective strategies require a co-design approach that intertwines the selection of efficient algorithms—ranging from optimized traditional methods like SWT and PARRM to modern DL and neuromorphic models—with innovations in hardware architecture and system-level design. The experimental protocols and analyses provided herein offer a roadmap for researchers to rigorously evaluate and develop artifact removal techniques that meet the stringent real-time, power, and size constraints of implantable devices, thereby accelerating the translation of neurotechnology from the laboratory to the clinic.

Handling Simultaneous Recording and Stimulation Artifacts

Simultaneous recording and stimulation in neurotechnology, such as combining transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) with electroencephalography (EEG), is a powerful method for investigating brain function and developing therapeutic interventions. However, the stimulation currents introduce significant artifacts that can overwhelm the much smaller neural signals, posing a major challenge for data interpretation and analysis [33] [66]. This document outlines the core principles, detection methods, and removal protocols for handling these artifacts, framed within the broader context of neurotechnology signal processing research.

Core Concepts and Artifact Classification

Artifacts during simultaneous protocols are unwanted signals that do not originate from the brain's neural activity. They can obscure genuine neural signals, reduce the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and lead to misinterpretation of data or clinical misdiagnosis if not properly addressed [1].

Table 1: Classification and Characteristics of Common Artifacts

Artifact Category	Specific Type	Origin	Impact on Signal	Key Features
Stimulation-Induced	tES Artifact	Direct current/alternating current from stimulator	Saturation of amplifiers, obscuring underlying brain activity [33]	High-amplitude, waveform often matches stimulation parameters
	Pulse Artifact	Cardiac electrical activity (ECG) or pulsatile motion in EEG-fMRI [1]	Rhythmic, high-amplitude waveforms	Periodic, often synchronized with heart rate
Physiological	Ocular (EOG)	Eye blinks and movements [1]	Low-frequency deflections	High-amplitude (100-200 µV), frontally dominant, delta/theta band
	Muscle (EMG)	Facial, neck, or jaw muscle contractions [1]	High-frequency noise	Broadband, dominates beta/gamma frequencies (>13 Hz)
	Sweat	Changes in electrode-skin impedance [1]	Very slow baseline drifts	Very low-frequency (delta band)
Non-Physiological	Electrode Pop	Sudden change in electrode-skin impedance [1]	Abrupt, high-amplitude transient	Short-duration spike, often isolated to a single channel
	Cable Movement	Motion of electrode cables [1]	Signal drift or sudden shifts	Variable, can mimic rhythmic brain activity
	Power Line Interference	Electromagnetic fields from AC power [1]	High-frequency noise superimposed on EEG	Sharp peak at 50 Hz or 60 Hz

Diagram 1: A generalized workflow for identifying and removing different categories of artifacts from neural signals.

Quantitative Data and Algorithm Comparison

Selecting the appropriate artifact removal technique depends on the artifact type, recording setup, and research goals. The table below summarizes the performance characteristics of key methods.

Table 2: Comparison of Artifact Removal Techniques

Removal Technique	Underlying Principle	Best Suited For	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Independent Component Analysis (ICA) [1] [36]	Blind source separation into statistically independent components	Ocular (EOG), muscle (EMG), and cardiac (ECG) artifacts [36]	Does not require reference channels; effective for separating neural and artifactual sources	May not fully separate artifacts from neural activity; removing entire components can cause neural data loss [36]
Wavelet-Enhanced ICA (wICA) [36]	ICA decomposition followed by Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) to correct artifact components	Ocular (EOG) artifacts	Reduces neural information loss by correcting, not rejecting, artifact components; fully automatic [36]	Performance depends on threshold selection for wavelet coefficients [36]
Deep Learning (CNN-LSTM) [1] [33]	Neural networks learn to map contaminated signals to clean signals	Complex and non-linear artifacts; real-time applications	Can model complex, non-linear relationships; high potential for real-time denoising [33]	Requires large datasets for training; risk of overfitting; high computational cost [67]
Hardware Separation [66]	Physically separating the stimulation current return path from the recording ground	Stimulation artifacts in intracranial recordings	Addresses the artifact at its source; can drastically reduce stimulus-induced saturation [66]	Specific to stimulation artifacts; requires specialized hardware setup

Experimental Protocols

Protocol for Wavelet-Enhanced ICA (wICA) for Ocular Artifact Removal

This protocol details an improved method for removing ocular artifacts, which selectively corrects EOG activity regions to minimize loss of neural information [36].

Materials:

• EEG recording system
• MATLAB (with EEGLAB toolbox and custom scripts for wICA)
• Standardized EEG dataset with EOG artifact annotations for validation

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Bandpass filter the raw EEG data (e.g., 1-40 Hz) and re-reference to the average reference.
• ICA Decomposition: Perform ICA (e.g., using the runica algorithm in EEGLAB) on the preprocessed data to obtain independent components (ICs).
• Artifact Component Identification: Automatically identify ICs containing ocular artifacts using temporal and spatial features (e.g., using the ADJUST toolbox) [36]. This step does not require reference EOG channels.
• Selective Wavelet Correction: a. Wavelet Decomposition: Apply Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) to the artifact ICs time series using a chosen wavelet family (e.g., Symlets). b. Artifact Region Detection: Identify sections within the component that contain high-amplitude EOG peaks (artifacts). c. Thresholding and Correction: Only within the detected EOG artifact regions, apply a threshold to the wavelet coefficients. Coefficients above the threshold are set to zero or shrunk. d. Wavelet Reconstruction: Perform inverse DWT on the corrected coefficients to reconstruct the IC with the EOG artifacts removed, while preserving neural data in other parts of the component.
• Signal Reconstruction: Back-project the corrected ICs along with all other unaltered ICs to reconstruct the artifact-free EEG signal in the channel space.

Diagram 2: Workflow for the Wavelet-Enhanced ICA (wICA) artifact removal method.

Protocol for Reducing Stimulation Artifacts via Hardware Configuration

This protocol outlines a hardware-based method to minimize stimulation artifacts at the source during intracranial electrical stimulation, which is critical for observing immediate neural responses [66].

Materials:

• Intracranial recording system (e.g., stereo-EEG or ECoG)
• Electrical stimulator with independent current return
• Surgical planning and neuronavigation software

Procedure:

• Electrode Implantation: Plan and implant intracranial electrodes according to clinical and research requirements.
• Stimulation Parameter Definition: Determine the stimulation parameters (e.g., frequency, pulse width, amplitude) for the experimental paradigm.
• Critical Hardware Setup: Ensure that the current return path from the stimulator is physically separated from the recording ground of the amplifier system. This prevents the stimulation current from flowing through the recording reference and contaminating all channels [66].
• Validation Recording: a. Conduct a short stimulation trial while recording. b. Compare the artifact amplitude and duration with this configuration to a setup where the return and ground are shared. c. The separated configuration should result in a significant reduction of the stimulus artifact, allowing for clearer visualization of neural signals immediately following the stimulus pulse.
• Proceed with Experimental Recording: Once the artifact is minimized, begin the full experimental protocol with simultaneous stimulation and recording.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Item Name	Function/Application	Specifications/Examples
High-Density EEG System	Signal acquisition with sufficient spatial resolution to aid source separation techniques like ICA.	Bitbrain 16-channel system [1]; Systems compatible with active shielding to reduce environmental noise.
ICA Software Toolboxes	Decomposing EEG signals into independent components for artifact identification and removal.	EEGLAB for MATLAB, ADJUST toolbox for automatic component identification [36].
Wavelet Toolbox	Implementing wavelet-based denoising and correction methods, such as the wICA algorithm.	MATLAB Wavelet Toolbox; Custom scripts for Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) [36].
Deep Learning Frameworks	Developing and training custom models (e.g., CNN-LSTM) for artifact removal.	TensorFlow, PyTorch; Pre-processed datasets of contaminated/clean EEG pairs for training [33] [67].
Referenced Bioamplifier	Recording physiological artifacts for regression-based removal methods.	Systems with additional channels for EOG, ECG, or EMG reference signals.
tES/tDCS Stimulator with Independent Return	Applying transcranial stimulation while minimizing artifact via hardware design.	Stimulators that allow for a dedicated, separate current return path [66].

Subject-Specific Adaptation and Cross-Participant Generalization

The pursuit of robust artifact removal in neurotechnology signal processing necessitates a dual approach: developing models that can adapt to the unique neurophysiology of individual subjects (subject-specific adaptation) while also generalizing effectively across a broader population (cross-participant generalization). This balance is critical for the application of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), neuroprosthetics, and clinical diagnostics, where reliability and accuracy are paramount. The mesoscopic framework of Freeman Neurodynamics provides a foundational perspective for this challenge, positing that the neuropil—populations of 10,000 to 100,000 neurons—serves as the fundamental building block of brain dynamics [68]. At this level, neural signals exhibit complex spatio-temporal patterns, including Amplitude Modulated (AM) patterns and oscillatory dynamics in the gamma range, which are crucial for understanding how the brain creates knowledge and differentiates between cognitive states [68].

Modern approaches are increasingly leveraging Brain Foundation Models (BFMs), which are pre-trained on large-scale neural datasets to learn universal neural representations [53]. Unlike conventional foundation models designed for natural language or computer vision, BFMs are specifically engineered to handle the high-noise, non-stationary, and heterogeneous nature of neural signals [53]. Their architecture supports both fine-tuning for subject-specific adaptation and zero- or few-shot generalization for application across new participants, thus directly addressing the core tension outlined in this document.

Methodologies for Signal Processing and Analysis

Two primary methodological approaches derived from Freeman Neurodynamics are relevant for dissecting the specific-generalizable problem. The first, addressing how the brain participates in the creation of knowledge, employs a Hilbert transform-based methodology to analyze AM patterns, Instantaneous Frequency (IF), and Analytic Phase (AP) in relatively narrow frequency bands [68]. This method is particularly suited for tracking individual-specific neural dynamics. The second methodology, used to differentiate between cognitive states or modalities, relies on a Fourier transform methodology to characterize spectral properties, which can be more readily compared across participants [68].

Table 1: Core Signal Processing Methodologies for Adaptation and Generalization

Methodology	Core Technique	Primary Application in Neurotechnology	Relevance to Adaptation/Generalization
Hilbert Transform	Derives instantaneous amplitude and phase of a signal [68]	Analysis of AM patterns and cognitive phase transitions [68]	High suitability for subject-specific adaptation due to focus on individual dynamic patterns
Fourier Transform	Decomposes signal into its constituent frequency components [68]	Differentiation of cognitive states based on spectral power (e.g., theta, alpha, beta, gamma) [68]	High suitability for cross-participant generalization by comparing standardized frequency bands
On-Implant Processing	Spike detection, sorting, and compression on the implant device [57]	Data reduction for high-density neural recording implants; real-time artifact management [57]	Enables subject-specific feature extraction at the source, reducing transmission bandwidth
Brain Foundation Models (BFMs)	Large-scale pre-training on diverse neural signals (EEG, fMRI) [53]	Zero/few-shot generalization for tasks like disease diagnosis and cognitive state assessment [53]	Core framework for cross-participant generalization; can be fine-tuned for subject-specific adaptation

For high-density brain implants, on-implant signal processing is a critical methodology for handling the massive data volume from thousands of recording channels. Techniques for spike detection, temporal and spatial compression, and spike sorting are employed to drastically reduce data volume before transmission, adhering to strict power and bandwidth constraints [57]. This pre-processing is a first and vital step in the signal chain that can be configured for either subject-specific or generalized operation prior to more advanced analysis by BFMs.

Experimental Protocols and Validation

Validating artifact removal techniques and neural decoding models requires rigorous experimental protocols designed to test both specificity and generalizability. The following workflow outlines a standardized approach for such validation, from data acquisition to final performance benchmarking.

Table 2: Key Performance Metrics for Benchmarking

Metric Category	Specific Metric	Target for Subject-Specific Adaptation	Target for Cross-Participant Generalization
Artifact Removal Quality	Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) Improvement	>20 dB	>15 dB
	Preservation of Neural Signal Power (in task-relevant bands)	>95%	>90%
Decoding Performance	Classification Accuracy (e.g., for motor imagery)	>95%	>85%
	Bitrate (for communication BCIs)	Maximize	Maintain within 15% of subject-specific peak
Spatial Validation	Dice Coefficient against canonical functional networks [69]	N/A (Individual-focused)	>0.7 for relevant networks (e.g., Somatomotor)
Computational Efficiency	Latency for real-time processing	<100 ms	<100 ms

A crucial step in validation, particularly for cross-participant studies, is the quantitative evaluation of spatial topographies. The Network Correspondence Toolbox (NCT) provides a standardized method for this by calculating Dice coefficients between a novel neuroimaging result (e.g., an activation map from a BFM) and multiple established functional brain atlases [69]. This tool allows researchers to statistically determine the magnitude and significance of spatial correspondence, moving beyond ad-hoc network labeling to a reproducible and quantitative framework. For example, a robust artifact removal and decoding pipeline should show strong Dice overlap (e.g., >0.7) with the somatomotor network when decoding hand movements [69].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential materials, tools, and software that form the core toolkit for research in subject-specific adaptation and cross-participant generalization.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Neurotechnology Signal Processing

Tool / Material	Function / Purpose	Specifications & Notes
High-Density Microelectrode Array	Records intra-cortical neural signals (action potentials & LFPs) with high spatial resolution [57]	Arrays with 1,000-10,000 electrodes; enables recording from large populations of neurons for robust model training.
On-Implant DSP Chip	Performs real-time signal processing (spike detection, compression) on the implant to reduce data transmission load [57]	Low-power, miniaturized circuit; critical for handling data from high-density arrays within strict power budgets.
Brain Foundation Models (BFMs)	Pre-trained models for decoding neural signals; can be adapted for specific subjects or tasks via fine-tuning [53]	Pre-trained on large-scale EEG/fMRI datasets; supports zero-shot generalization and fine-tuning for subject-specific adaptation.
Network Correspondence Toolbox (NCT)	Quantitatively evaluates spatial overlap between new findings and established functional brain atlases [69]	Uses Dice coefficients and spin test permutations; standardizes reporting and validation of cross-participant results.
Freeman Neurodynamics Analysis Suite	Software for implementing Hilbert and Fourier transform methodologies to analyze AM patterns and cognitive states [68]	Focuses on mesoscopic brain dynamics; key for investigating the neural basis of cognition and perception.

Integrated Application Workflow

The synergy between the various methodologies and tools is best illustrated in an integrated workflow designed for developing a deployable neurotechnology application. This workflow emphasizes the continuous interaction between subject-specific adaptation and cross-participant generalization.

This workflow begins with a pre-trained BFM that encapsulates generalized knowledge from a large population [53]. For a new user, this model undergoes a fine-tuning process using a small, initial calibration dataset from that specific individual, implementing subject-specific adaptation. The fine-tuned model is then deployed for real-time operation, which includes continuous artifact removal and neural decoding. A key feature of this workflow is the ongoing performance monitoring, which can detect model drift or the presence of new, unlearned artifact types. If performance degrades, the model parameters can be updated, creating a closed-loop adaptation system. Furthermore, anonymized data from deployed models can be aggregated and used to re-train and improve the base BFM, enhancing its inherent generalizability for future users and creating a virtuous cycle of improvement that bridges the specific-generalizable divide. This approach ensures that neurotechnologies remain both personally accurate and broadly applicable.

Balancing Artifact Removal with Neural Signal Preservation

The accurate interpretation of neural signals is fundamental to advancements in basic neuroscience, clinical diagnostics, and therapeutic neurotechnologies. A central challenge in this field lies in the pervasive presence of artifacts—unwanted signals that do not originate from neural activity—which can obscure, mimic, or distort the underlying brain signals of interest [1]. These artifacts, stemming from both physiological sources (e.g., eye movements, muscle activity) and non-physiological sources (e.g., electrical interference, electrode issues), contaminate recordings and can significantly reduce the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) [1]. The pursuit of clean data therefore necessitates robust artifact removal. However, many removal techniques face a critical trade-off: the aggressive elimination of artifacts often risks inadvertently removing or altering genuine neural information [14]. This document outlines application notes and experimental protocols designed to help researchers navigate this delicate balance, ensuring the integrity of neural signals is preserved throughout the data processing pipeline.

Quantitative Comparison of Artifact Removal Performance

Selecting an appropriate artifact removal method requires a clear understanding of its performance characteristics. The following tables summarize quantitative metrics and key differentiators for several state-of-the-art techniques.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Advanced Artifact Removal Algorithms

Method	Stimulation Context	Key Metric	Reported Performance	Computational Efficiency
SMARTA+ [14]	Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation (aDBS)	Normalized Mean Square Error (NMSE)Spectral Concentration (SC)Beta Burst Detection (F1-Score)	"Comparable or superior artifact removal" to SMARTA; more accurate beta burst event localization.	High (Significantly reduced computation time vs. SMARTA, enabling real-time use)
Complex CNN [70]	Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tDCS)	Root Relative Mean Squared Error (RRMSE)Correlation Coefficient (CC)	Best performance for tDCS artifacts in temporal and spectral domains.	Variable (Dependent on network architecture and implementation)
M4 Network (SSM) [70]	Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tACS/tRNS)	Root Relative Mean Squared Error (RRMSE)Correlation Coefficient (CC)	Best performance for tACS and tRNS artifacts.	Variable

Table 2: Methodological Trade-offs and Applications

Method	Core Mechanism	Advantages	Limitations / Challenges
SMARTA+ [14]	Manifold denoising, template adaptation, approximate nearest neighbors (ANN).	Suppresses stimulus & DC transient artifacts; preserves spectral/temporal structure; high efficiency.	Requires building a diverse artifact library for optimal performance.
Deep Learning (Complex CNN, M4) [70]	End-to-end feature learning from raw or minimally processed data.	Automates feature extraction; outperforms traditional methods in specific tES modalities.	Performance is stimulation-type dependent; requires large datasets for training.
Template Subtraction [14]	Averages and subtracts repeated artifact instances.	Conceptually simple, widely used.	Assumes artifact stability; performance degrades with time-varying artifacts.
Blanking [14]	Temporarily disables signal acquisition during stimulation pulses.	Effective at suppressing high-amplitude artifacts.	Removes underlying neural signal during blanking period; fails to address DC transients.
Independent Component Analysis (ICA) [1]	Blind source separation to isolate artifact components.	Effective for physiological artifacts like ocular and muscle activity.	Requires manual component inspection; challenging for non-stationary artifacts.

Experimental Protocols for Validated Methods

Protocol for SMARTA+ in Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation

Application Note: SMARTA+ is designed for real-time, closed-loop aDBS systems where preserving the temporal structure of biomarkers like beta bursts is critical for effective neuromodulation [14].

Materials:

• Local Field Potential (LFP) recordings from implanted DBS electrodes.
• Recording system (e.g., Neuro Omega, Alpha Omega Engineering).
• Semi-real aDBS data synthesized from clean patient recordings for validation.

Procedure:

• Data Acquisition & Preprocessing: Record bilateral LFPs from the subthalamic nucleus (STN) in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. Sample at a rate sufficient to capture high-frequency oscillations (HFOs). Apply basic band-pass filtering if needed.
• Artifact Library Construction: Build a diverse library of stimulus artifact templates. For enhanced performance, this library can be populated with artifacts from other subjects to aid in cross-subject learning, particularly for modeling artifacts during stimulation onset [14].
• DC Transient Baseline Correction: For each stimulation period, apply a line-fitting algorithm to the signal onset to estimate and remove the slow-varying baseline shift caused by DC transients.
• Artifact Matching and Subtraction: a. Replace the computationally intensive k-nearest neighbors (KNN) search with an Approximate Nearest Neighbors (ANN) algorithm using decision trees to rapidly identify the most similar artifact templates from the library [14]. b. Apply a dimensionality reduction step (e.g., wavelet transform) to exploit the sparsity structure of the stimulus artifacts. c. Use the matched templates to subtract the artifact component from the raw signal.
• Validation & Performance Metrics: Validate the output using semi-real and real patient data. Calculate:
  • Normalized Mean Square Error (NMSE): To quantify LFP recovery quality across different spectral bands (beta, gamma, HFOs).
  • Artifact Residual (AR): To assess time-domain artifact suppression.
  • Spectral Concentration (SC): To measure spectral contamination.
  • Temporal Event Localization Analysis: To evaluate the precision and recall of beta burst onset and offset detection, a key indicator of temporal structure preservation [14].

Protocol for Deep Learning in Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Artifacts

Application Note: The optimal deep learning architecture for tES artifact removal is highly dependent on the stimulation modality. This protocol provides a guideline for method selection and benchmarking [70].

Materials:

• Clean EEG dataset.
• Synthetic tES artifact models for tDCS, tACS, and tRNS.

Procedure:

• Dataset Generation: Create a synthetic dataset by combining clean EEG recordings with simulated tES artifacts for tDCS, tACS, and tRNS paradigms. This provides a ground truth for method validation.
• Method Selection: Based on the stimulation type, select the recommended network architecture [70]:
  • For tDCS artifacts, employ a Complex Convolutional Neural Network (Complex CNN).
  • For tACS and tRNS artifacts, employ a multi-modular network based on State Space Models (M4).
• Model Training & Benchmarking: Train the selected model on the synthetic dataset. In parallel, apply 11 other artifact removal techniques (e.g., traditional filtering, regression, other neural networks) to the same dataset to establish a performance benchmark.
• Performance Evaluation: Evaluate all methods using the following metrics calculated in both temporal and spectral domains [70]:
  • Root Relative Mean Squared Error (RRMSE)
  • Correlation Coefficient (CC)
• Application to Real Data: Apply the best-performing trained model to real tES-EEG data for artifact removal.

Visualization of Workflows and Signaling Pathways

SMARTA+ Artifact Removal Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the enhanced SMARTA+ pipeline for efficient artifact removal in aDBS, highlighting key improvements over its predecessor.

Deep Learning Method Selection for tES

This flowchart provides a decision framework for selecting the most effective deep learning-based artifact removal method based on the tES modality.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools for Neural Signal Artifact Research

Tool / Solution	Function / Application	Key Characteristics
SMARTA+ Algorithm [14]	Suppression of stimulus and DC transient artifacts in aDBS.	Computationally efficient, enables real-time processing, preserves beta burst timing.
Complex CNN Model [70]	Removal of tDCS-induced artifacts in EEG.	Superior performance for direct current stimulation artifacts in temporal/spectral domains.
M4 Network (SSM) [70]	Removal of tACS and tRNS-induced artifacts in EEG.	State Space Model architecture optimal for oscillatory and random noise stimulation artifacts.
Independent Component Analysis (ICA) [1]	Blind source separation for isolating physiological artifacts (EOG, EMG).	Statistically identifies independent sources; effective for ocular and muscle artifacts.
Shrinkage and Manifold Denoising [14]	Core mathematical principle for adaptive template-based artifact removal.	Leverages signal geometry and random matrix theory to preserve neural signal structure.
Approximate Nearest Neighbors (ANN) [14]	Accelerates artifact template matching.	Replaces KNN with decision trees for faster computation, crucial for real-time systems.
Non-Invasive EEG Systems [71]	Acquisition of scalp-level neural signals for diagnostics and research.	Dry-electrode caps for faster setup; often integrated with AI for cloud-synced analysis.
Implantable Neurostimulators [71] [14]	Source of therapeutic stimulation and recorded LFPs for aDBS.	Enable recording from stimulation site; next-gen devices feature closed-loop feedback.

Troubleshooting Common Artifact Removal Failures and Limitations

Artifact removal is a critical preprocessing step in neurotechnology signal processing, directly impacting the reliability of subsequent neural decoding and analysis. Despite advanced algorithms, pipelines frequently fail due to specific technical and physiological challenges, particularly in real-world settings. This application note details common failure points in artifact removal workflows, provides validated troubleshooting protocols, and presents a comparative analysis of contemporary techniques to enhance methodological rigor for researchers and scientists in drug development and neurotechnology.

Quantitative Analysis of Artifact Removal Techniques

The performance of artifact removal methods varies significantly based on artifact type, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and data characteristics. The table below summarizes the quantitative performance of key algorithms as reported in recent literature.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Artifact Removal Techniques

Technique	Best For Artifact Type	Reported Performance Metric	Value	Key Limitation
Generalized Eigen Decomposition (GED)	High-amplitude motion artifacts (walking, jogging) [72]	Correlation with ground truth (Ultra-low SNR 0.1-5) [72]	0.93 [72]	Validation required for very high-density EEG [72]
		Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) [72]	1.43 μV [72]
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	Ocular and muscular artifacts [9] [1]	Accuracy (when clean signal is reference) [9]	71% [9]	Requires multi-channel data; performance drops with low channel count [9]
		Selectivity (w.r.t. physiological signal) [9]	63% [9]
Deep Learning (CNN-LSTM with Attention)	Muscular and motion artifacts [9] [73]	Motor Imagery Classification Accuracy [73]	97.25% [73]	High computational cost; requires large datasets [73] [67]
Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR)	Ocular, movement, and instrumental artifacts [9]	N/A	N/A	Sensitive to parameter tuning; can remove neural signals [9]

Troubleshooting Common Failures and Experimental Protocols

This section outlines common failure modes and provides step-by-step protocols for diagnosing and resolving them.

Failure Mode 1: Incomplete Ocular Artifact Removal

a) Symptom: Residual low-frequency, high-amplitude deflections persist in frontal channels after ICA or regression, often obscuring delta/theta band neural activity [1]. b) Root Cause: Standard algorithms often fail to separate blinks from saccades and lateral gazes, which have distinct spatial topographies [9] [1]. c) Protocol: Enhanced Ocular Artifact Identification - Step 1: Apply ICA to the high-pass filtered (0.5 Hz) raw data. - Step 2: Instead of automatic classification, compute the correlation between all ICs and EOG signals. Correlated ICs represent standard blink components [1]. - Step 3: Visually inspect the scalp topography of correlated components. Saccades typically show asymmetric frontal distributions compared to the symmetric front-central distribution of blinks [1]. - Step 4: Before rejection, examine the power spectrum of suspected components. True neural components (e.g., from anterior cingulate) may have residual eye movement signal but will also show spectral peaks in alpha/beta bands. - Step 5: Remove only components with a topography and time-course characteristic of ocular artifacts.

Failure Mode 2: Muscular (EMG) Artifact Proliferation

a) Symptom: High-frequency noise persists or is smeared across channels after processing, contaminating beta and gamma frequency analyses crucial for motor and cognitive studies [1]. b) Root Cause: Broadband EMG artifacts have a overlapping frequency range (20-300 Hz) with neural gamma oscillations. Traditional filters fail, and ICA may spread muscle activity over multiple components [9] [1]. c) Protocol: Multi-Stage EMG Attenuation - Step 1: Spectral Screening: Calculate the power spectral density for all channels. Channels with disproportionately high power (>3 median absolute deviations above the median) in the 30-100 Hz range should be flagged [9]. - Step 2: Spatio-Temporal Decomposition: Apply a wavelet transform (e.g., Morlet) to decompose the signal. Identify and zero out wavelet coefficients that exceed a statistically defined threshold (e.g., 3 standard deviations) and are localized over temporalis and neck muscle regions [9]. - Step 3: Validation: After cleaning, verify that the power in the 60-80 Hz band (where EMG is dominant but neural gamma is typically weak) is significantly reduced, while power in lower bands (e.g., 8-30 Hz) remains intact.

Failure Mode 3: Performance Degradation in Low-Channel Wearable EEG

a) Symptom: Drastic loss of data after artifact rejection or significant neural signal distortion during removal, making low-density wearable data unusable [9]. b) Root Cause: Source separation techniques like ICA perform poorly with limited spatial sampling (<16 channels). Motion artifacts also have higher amplitude than brain signals [9]. c) Protocol: Contrast-based Artifact Removal for Low SNR Data - Step 1: Covariance Matrix Construction: Calculate the covariance matrix from the data segment contaminated with high-amplitude artifacts (C_artifact). - Step 2: Reference Covariance Construction: Calculate a "clean" reference covariance matrix (C_clean) from a segment of artifact-free data (e.g., during rest). If no clean segment exists, use a simulated baseline [72]. - Step 3: Generalized Eigen Decomposition (GED): Solve the generalized eigenvalue problem: C_artifact * W = C_clean * W * Λ, where W are the eigenvectors and Λ is a diagonal matrix of eigenvalues [72]. - Step 4: Component Selection: The eigenvectors with the largest eigenvalues represent dimensions where artifact power is maximal relative to the clean baseline. Project the data onto these components to isolate and remove the artifacts [72]. - Step 5: Reconstruction: Reconstruct the signal by projecting the data back to the sensor space, excluding the artifact components. This method has proven effective even at SNRs as low as 0.1 [72].

Visualization of Experimental Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the core troubleshooting workflows and signaling pathways described in the protocols.

Enhanced Ocular Artifact Identification

Multi-Stage EMG Attenuation Protocol

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Materials and Tools for Artifact Removal Research

Item / Reagent	Function / Application	Technical Notes
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	Blind source separation for isolating ocular, cardiac, and muscular artifacts from neural signals [9] [1].	Most effective with high-density (>32 channels) EEG; performance degrades with wearable systems (<16 channels) [9].
Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR)	Statistical method for removing high-variance, transient artifacts in continuous data [9].	Sensitive to cutoff parameter; optimal setting depends on data quality and artifact type [9].
Generalized Eigen Decomposition (GED)	Contrast-based method for removing high-amplitude motion artifacts in low-SNR regimes [72].	Effective even at SNRs of 0.1-5; superior to ASR and ICA for motion artifacts in ambulatory EEG [72].
Deep Learning Models (CNN-LSTM)	Automated artifact detection and removal using spatial (CNN) and temporal (LSTM) feature extraction [9] [33] [73].	Achieves state-of-the-art accuracy but requires large, labeled datasets for training and significant computational resources [73] [67].
Auxiliary Sensors (EOG, EMG, IMU)	Provide reference signals for physiological artifacts (EOG/EMG) and motion tracking (IMU) to enhance detection [9].	Underutilized but highly promising for improving artifact identification in ecological recordings [9].
Public EEG Datasets with Artifacts	Benchmarking and validating new artifact removal algorithms against standardized data [9].	Critical for reproducibility and comparative performance analysis. Survey provided in [9].

Metaheuristic optimization algorithms, particularly those inspired by avian swarm intelligence, have emerged as powerful tools for addressing complex challenges in neurotechnology signal processing. This article details the application of the Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO) algorithm and its modern variants for artifact removal in Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) and dry Electroencephalography (EEG) systems. We provide structured protocols for implementing these algorithms, supported by quantitative performance comparisons. Furthermore, we explore the nascent paradigm of neuromorphic computing (NC) as a hardware platform for executing these algorithms with ultra-low power consumption and latency, paving the way for their deployment in next-generation, portable neurotechnology devices.

Signal processing in neurotechnology, especially for artifact removal, often involves solving complex, non-linear, and high-dimensional optimization problems. Traditional methods can be inadequate for these tasks, creating a demand for robust and efficient metaheuristics.

Bird Swarm-based Algorithms, such as the Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO), mimic the cooperative hunting behavior of Harris hawks, employing sophisticated exploration and exploitation strategies to navigate complex solution spaces [74]. The inherent efficiency of these algorithms makes them exceptionally suitable for optimizing parameters in signal processing pipelines, such as those used for filtering and decomposing noisy neural data. Recent research has begun to leverage these capabilities to achieve superior artifact removal in EEG and tES, which is critical for clean data analysis in both clinical and research settings [75] [70].

The emergence of Neuromorphic Computing (NC) presents a groundbreaking shift for running these algorithms. NC systems, which emulate the neural structure of the brain, offer a radical departure from traditional Von Neumann architectures. They are characterized by extreme energy efficiency, low latency, and a small physical footprint [76]. The implementation of neuromorphic-based metaheuristics, or Nheuristics, on such hardware promises to enable real-time, on-chip optimization for brain-computer interfaces and wearable neurotechnology devices, minimizing power consumption and response times [76].

Core Algorithmic Frameworks and Comparative Analysis

Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO) and Its Variants

The standard HHO algorithm simulates the surprise pounce and chasing style of a Harris hawk flock. This process is mathematically modeled in two phases:

• Exploration Phase: Hawks perch randomly and search for prey based on the positions of other family members and the prey itself.
• Exploitation Phase: The hawk employs four soft besiege strategies based on the prey's escaping energy. These strategies include soft besiege, hard besiege, soft besiege with progressive rapid dives, and hard besiege with progressive rapid dives, allowing the algorithm to dynamically switch between different search modes near a potential solution [74].

Recent innovations have led to more powerful variants of HHO. The Multi-objective HHO has been developed for applications like determining the optimal location and size of distributed generation in radial distribution systems, a problem analogous to multi-objective filter design in signal processing [75]. Furthermore, other avian-inspired algorithms have been enhanced; for instance, the Secretary Bird Optimization Algorithm (SBOA) was improved via a multi-strategy fusion (UTFSBOA) that incorporates a directional search mechanism and a Cauchy–Gaussian crossover, significantly boosting its convergence accuracy and ability to escape local optima [77].

Quantitative Performance of Select Metaheuristics

The performance of optimization algorithms is typically validated on standardized benchmark functions. The table below summarizes a quantitative comparison of several algorithms, including an improved Secretary Bird Optimization Algorithm, based on published results from the CEC2005 and CEC2022 benchmark suites [77].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms

Algorithm Name	Core Inspiration	Key Mechanism	Reported Improvement (vs. Standard SBOA)	Best For
UTFSBOA [77]	Secretary Bird	Multi-strategy fusion, Cauchy–Gaussian crossover	81.18% avg. accuracy improvement (30D), 88.22% (100D)	High-dimensional, complex spaces
Multi-objective HHO [75]	Harris Hawk	Cooperative besieging tactics	N/A (Solves multi-objective problems)	Multi-objective engineering problems
HHO with SA [74]	Harris Hawk	Simulated Annealing for feature selection	Improved feature selection performance	Medical field feature selection

The Neuromorphic Computing (NC) Paradigm for Nheuristics

Implementing metaheuristics on NC hardware represents a frontier in optimization. NC systems use Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) to perform computations in an event-driven, asynchronous manner [76]. The fundamental advantages of NC for optimization are:

• Collocated Memory and Processing: Eliminates the Von Neumann bottleneck, drastically speeding up iterative computations [76].
• Event-Driven Computation: Operations are triggered only by "spikes," leading to exceptional energy efficiency, with power consumption as low as milliwatts compared to watts for conventional systems [76].
• Massive Inherent Parallelism: Allows for the simultaneous evaluation of a vast number of candidate solutions [76].
• Stochasticity: The inherent noise in SNNs can be harnessed to help algorithms escape local optima [76].

The following diagram illustrates the workflow for implementing a metaheuristic like HHO on a neuromorphic architecture.

Application Notes: Optimization in Neurotechnology Signal Processing

Artifact Removal in Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES)

Simultaneous tES and EEG recording is plagued by strong stimulation artifacts that obscure underlying brain activity. Machine learning methods for artifact removal often require the optimization of numerous hyperparameters. A 2025 study systematically evaluated several methods, finding that the optimal model is stimulation-type dependent [70].

• For tDCS artifacts, a Convolutional Neural Network (Complex CNN) demonstrated superior performance.
• For tACS and tRNS artifacts, a Multi-modular Network based on State Space Models (M4) was most effective [70].

Optimization algorithms like HHO can be employed to automate the tuning of these network architectures (e.g., layer sizes, learning rates), thereby maximizing performance metrics like the Root Relative Mean Squared Error (RRMSE) and Correlation Coefficient (CC) reported in the study [70].

Dry EEG Signal Denoising

Dry EEG systems are highly susceptible to movement artifacts. A 2025 study proposed a combined spatial and temporal denoising pipeline, integrating ICA-based methods (Fingerprint + ARCI) with Spatial Harmonic Analysis (SPHARA) [78]. The key steps in this pipeline represent a sequence of optimization problems:

• Blind Source Separation: ICA optimizes a cost function to separate statistically independent sources from the mixed EEG signals.
• Component Classification: Heuristic or machine learning models are optimized to identify and remove artifact-related components.
• Spectral Filtering: SPHARA is applied to the reconstructed data, which involves optimizing the selection of spatial harmonics to remove noise while preserving neural signals.

The performance of this combined pipeline was quantified using Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD), showing a significant improvement over using either method in isolation [78].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Benchmarking HHO Variants for Function Optimization

This protocol outlines the steps for evaluating the performance of an HHO-based algorithm on standard test functions, a prerequisite for its application in signal processing.

1. Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Materials for Algorithm Benchmarking

Item	Function/Description
CEC2005/CEC2022 Benchmark Sets	A suite of standardized mathematical functions (unimodal, multimodal, composite) for rigorous algorithm testing.
Computational Environment (e.g., MATLAB, Python)	Platform for implementing the HHO algorithm and calculating benchmark function values.
Performance Metrics	Quantitative measures for comparison, including Average Convergence Accuracy, Convergence Speed, and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test for statistical significance.

2. Methodology

• Algorithm Initialization: Define the HHO population size (e.g., 30-50 hawks), the maximum number of iterations, and the dimension of the problem (e.g., 30D, 100D).
• Function Evaluation: For each hawk in the population, calculate the fitness value based on the selected CEC benchmark function.
• Iterative Optimization: Run the HHO algorithm. In each iteration:
  • Calculate the prey's escaping energy E.
  • Perform exploration or exploitation based on the value of |E|.
  • Execute one of the four besiege strategies during exploitation.
  • Update the position of each hawk.
• Data Collection & Analysis: Record the best fitness value found over iterations. Repeat the process multiple times to account for stochasticity. Compare the convergence curve and final accuracy against other state-of-the-art algorithms [77].

Protocol 2: Optimizing a Dry EEG Denoising Pipeline

This protocol describes how an optimizer like HHO can be integrated into a dry EEG denoising workflow.

1. Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for Dry EEG Denoising

Item	Function/Description
Dry EEG System (e.g., 64-channel cap)	Records cortical activity with rapid setup but is prone to movement artifacts.
Artifact Removal Libraries	Software implementations of ICA (e.g., Fingerprint, ARCI) and Spatial Filters (e.g., SPHARA).
Quality Metrics	Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD), and Standard Deviation (SD) to quantify denoising performance.

2. Methodology

• Data Acquisition & Preprocessing: Record dry EEG data during a motor performance paradigm. Apply basic band-pass filtering (e.g., 0.5-45 Hz) [78].
• Define the Optimization Problem: The objective is to maximize the output SNR of the denoised signal. The parameters to be optimized could include:
  • The number of independent components to reject in the ICA step.
  • The threshold for identifying artifact components in the ICA domain.
  • The cutoff level for selecting spatial harmonics in the SPHARA method.
• Execute HHO-Optimized Denoising:
  • Each "hawk" in the HHO population represents a unique set of the above parameters.
  • For each hawk, run the combined Fingerprint + ARCI + SPHARA pipeline with its parameter set.
  • Calculate the fitness (SNR) of the resulting denoised signal.
  • Let the HHO algorithm evolve the population of parameter sets over multiple generations to maximize the fitness function.
• Validation: Apply the best parameter set found by HHO to a validation dataset and compute the final RMSD and SNR to assess the quality of the cleaned EEG signal [78].

The following workflow diagram integrates the optimization algorithm with the signal processing steps.

Multi-objective Fitness Functions for Performance Evaluation

In neurotechnology signal processing, the evaluation of artifact removal algorithms presents a complex, multi-faceted challenge. A single performance metric is often insufficient to capture the trade-offs between competing objectives such as signal fidelity, noise suppression, and computational efficiency. Multi-objective fitness functions provide a mathematical framework for simultaneously optimizing these conflicting criteria, enabling the development of balanced and effective artifact removal solutions for electroencephalography (EEG) and related neural signal modalities [79] [80]. This framework is particularly crucial in clinical and pharmaceutical research, where preserving neurologically relevant information while eliminating contaminants is paramount for accurate biomarker identification and treatment efficacy assessment [81] [82].

The inherent conflict between objectives—for instance, maximizing artifact suppression while minimizing signal distortion—necessitates approaches that can identify Pareto-optimal solutions [79]. These are solutions where no objective can be improved without degrading another. Advanced optimization algorithms, particularly those inspired by evolutionary processes, are adept at discovering these optimal trade-offs in high-dimensional parameter spaces common to modern deep learning-based artifact removal networks [79] [82]. This document outlines standardized application notes and experimental protocols for implementing multi-objective fitness functions in the performance evaluation of neurotechnology signal processing pipelines.

Quantitative Performance Metrics for Artifact Removal

The performance of any artifact removal algorithm must be quantified across multiple, often competing, dimensions. The following metrics are essential components of a comprehensive multi-objective fitness function.

Table 1: Core Quantitative Metrics for Evaluating Artifact Removal Performance

Metric Category	Specific Metric	Definition and Purpose	Typical Target Values/Notes
Temporal Fidelity	Average Correlation Coefficient (CC)	Measures the linear correlation between processed and clean reference signals in the time domain.	Closer to 1.0 indicates better preservation of original signal dynamics [82].
	Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSEt)	Quantifies the magnitude of error in the temporal domain between processed and clean signals.	Lower values indicate less distortion of the temporal waveform [82].
Spectral Fidelity	Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSEf)	Quantifies the magnitude of error in the frequency domain (power spectral density).	Lower values indicate better preservation of the original frequency content [82].
Signal Quality	Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)	Measures the ratio of power between the desired neural signal and residual noise/artifacts.	Higher values (dB) indicate more effective artifact suppression [82] [83].
Spatial Integrity	Topographical Correlation	Assesses the preservation of spatial signal patterns across electrode arrays post-processing.	Critical for source localization and functional connectivity analysis [2].
Computational Efficiency	Processing Time per Epoch	Measures the time required to process a standard unit of data (e.g., a 1-second epoch).	Crucial for real-time BCI and clinical monitoring applications [2] [80].

Different artifact types and research goals necessitate weighting these metrics differently. For instance, research focusing on preserving event-related potentials would prioritize temporal fidelity (CC, RRMSE_t), whereas studies on brain-state classification might emphasize spectral fidelity (RRMSE_f) [82] [84]. Furthermore, the evaluation context—whether using semi-synthetic data with a known ground truth or fully real-world data—determines which metrics are most applicable and reliable [2] [82].

Experimental Protocols for Performance Evaluation

Protocol 1: Benchmarking on Semi-Synthetic Datasets

This protocol is designed for the initial development and comparative benchmarking of artifact removal algorithms using data where the clean EEG ground truth is known.

1. Aim: To quantitatively evaluate the performance of an artifact removal algorithm against a known clean EEG baseline.

2. Materials and Data Preparation:

• Source Data: Utilize public datasets such as EEGdenoiseNet [82] which provide clean EEG epochs and separate artifact recordings (EOG, EMG).
• Semi-Synthetic Data Generation: Artificially contaminate clean EEG epochs ((S{clean})) with recorded artifact signals ((A)) at varying SNR levels: (S{contaminated} = S_{clean} + \lambda A), where (\lambda) is a scaling factor controlling contamination intensity [82].
• Data Splitting: Partition the dataset into training, validation, and testing subsets (e.g., 70/15/15 split) ensuring no data leakage.

3. Procedure: 1. Preprocessing: Apply a standard preprocessing chain (e.g., band-pass filtering 0.5-45 Hz, notch filtering at 50/60 Hz) to all data. 2. Algorithm Application: Process the (S{contaminated}) test set with the target artifact removal algorithm to obtain (S{processed}). 3. Metric Calculation: For each ((S{clean}), (S{processed})) pair, compute the metrics listed in Table 1 (CC, RRMSE_t, RRMSE_f, SNR). 4. Statistical Analysis: Perform paired statistical tests (e.g., paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test) to compare the performance of different algorithms across multiple epochs and subjects.

4. Outcome Analysis: The algorithm that achieves the best trade-off across all metrics, particularly high CC and SNR with low RRMSE values, demonstrates superior performance. Results should be reported as mean ± standard deviation across all test epochs.

Protocol 2: Validation on Real-World Task Data

This protocol validates algorithm performance in more ecologically valid conditions, typical of pharmaceutical or sports neuroscience applications, where a perfect ground truth is unavailable.

1. Aim: To assess the practical utility of an artifact removal algorithm in preserving neurologically relevant features during a cognitive or motor task.

2. Materials and Data Preparation:

• Data Acquisition: Collect or use existing high-density EEG (≥32 channels) data from subjects performing a well-defined task (e.g., n-back for working memory [82], motor imagery, or athletic performance monitoring [84]).
• Reference Tasks: Select tasks with established neural correlates (e.g., alpha/beta power modulation in the motor cortex, frontal theta during cognitive load).

3. Procedure: 1. Reference Establishment: Preprocess a subset of the data using a state-of-the-art, manually corrected pipeline (e.g., involving Independent Component Analysis (ICA) with expert component rejection) to establish a "silver standard" reference [83]. 2. Blind Processing: Process the entire dataset with the automated algorithm under evaluation. 3. Feature Extraction: From both the reference and algorithm-processed data, extract task-relevant features (e.g., band power in specific frequency bands, functional connectivity metrics like wPLI or PLV [81]). 4. Downstream Analysis: Compare the outcome of a downstream analysis (e.g., group-level statistical comparison of task conditions, accuracy of a cognitive state classifier) between the reference and algorithm-processed data.

4. Outcome Analysis: Successful artifact removal is indicated by minimal significant differences in the downstream analysis results between the algorithm-processed data and the carefully curated reference. High agreement suggests the algorithm effectively preserves neurologically meaningful information [81] [84].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Artifact Removal Research

Category	Item/Solution	Function and Application
Software & Algorithms	Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	A blind source separation method used as a benchmark for decomposing EEG signals and manually identifying artifact components [83] [1].
	Automatic Subspace Reconstruction (ASR)	A statistical method for real-time removal of high-amplitude, transient artifacts in multi-channel EEG, effective for movement artifacts [2].
	Deep Learning Architectures (e.g., CNN-LSTM, CLEnet)	Advanced models like CLEnet use dual-branch CNNs with LSTMs and attention mechanisms to extract both spatial and temporal features for robust, end-to-end artifact removal [82].
Datasets	EEGdenoiseNet	A semi-synthetic benchmark dataset containing clean EEG, EOG, and EMG signals, enabling controlled algorithm training and testing [82].
	Public Repositories (e.g., figshare)	Host real clinical data, such as the MDD/Healthy Control EEG dataset used for developing personalized stimulation frameworks [81].
Hardware Considerations	Wearable EEG Systems (≤16 channels)	Used to test algorithm performance under low-density, real-world conditions with dry electrodes and motion artifacts [2].
	High-Density Research Systems (64+ channels)	Provide high-fidelity data for developing and validating methods where spatial resolution is critical (e.g., for ICA) [83].
Validation Tools	Kuramoto-based Neural Simulators	Computational models used to simulate brain network dynamics and validate the functional outcomes of artifact-cleaned signals in-silico [81].
	Multi-objective Optimizers (e.g., NSGA-II, MOVEA)	Evolutionary algorithms used to find optimal trade-offs between conflicting fitness objectives during algorithm parameter tuning [79] [81].

Integrated Multi-Objective Optimization Framework

For sophisticated applications such as personalizing neuromodulation targets or optimizing deep learning model parameters, a structured optimization framework is essential.

1. Problem Formulation: Define the artifact removal problem as a minimization problem: [ \min{\theta} \left[ -CC(\theta), RRMSEt(\theta), RRMSE_f(\theta), -SNR(\theta), Time(\theta) \right] ] where (\theta) represents the parameters of the artifact removal algorithm.

2. Optimization Execution: Employ a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) like NSGA-II [81] or the MOVEA framework [79]. These algorithms work by:

• Population Initialization: Generating a set of candidate solutions (algorithm parameters).
• Fitness Evaluation: Assessing each candidate using the multi-objective fitness function.
• Selection and Variation: Selecting the best-performing candidates and creating new candidates through crossover and mutation.
• Pareto Front Generation: Iteratively evolving the population to produce a set of non-dominated solutions after a single run [79].

3. Decision-Making: The final choice from the Pareto-optimal set depends on the specific application. A real-time BCI might prioritize the solution with the lowest processing time, accepting a slight decrease in SNR, whereas a clinical diagnostic tool would prioritize the highest possible temporal and spectral fidelity.

Validation Frameworks and Comparative Analysis of Artifact Removal Techniques

In neurotechnology, the accurate measurement of neural signals is fundamentally constrained by the presence of artifacts and noise. These contaminants, which can originate from physiological sources like muscle activity or from technical sources such as electrical interference, often obscure the neural signals of interest [1]. Consequently, robust signal processing techniques for artifact removal are a critical component of neural data analysis. The efficacy of these techniques must be quantitatively evaluated using rigorous performance metrics. This document provides detailed application notes and experimental protocols for four key metrics—Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Spectral Distortion, and Signal-to-Noise Ratio Improvement (SNRI)—within the context of neurotechnology signal processing research. These metrics are essential for validating artifact removal algorithms, from traditional methods like Wiener filtering to modern deep learning approaches, ensuring their reliability for both research and clinical applications [85] [86].

Metric Definitions and Computational Formulae

Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR)

PSNR is a logarithmic metric expressing the ratio between the maximum possible power of a signal and the power of corrupting noise. It is most effectively applied when a clean reference signal is available, such as when simulating artifacts on a known good signal [87] [88].

• Formula: PSNR is derived from the Mean Squared Error (MSE). The MSE between a reference signal (or image) f and a processed signal g is calculated as: MSE = (1/(m*n)) * ΣΣ (f[i,j] - g[i,j])^2 [87] [88] [89]. The PSNR (in decibels, dB) is then defined as: PSNR = 10 * log10( (MAX_f^2) / MSE ) or, equivalently, PSNR = 20 * log10(MAX_f / √MSE) [87] [88] [89].
• Variables:
  • m, n: Dimensions of the signal (e.g., samples, channels) [87].
  • f: The original, reference signal matrix.
  • g: The degraded or processed signal matrix.
  • MAX_f: The maximum possible value of the signal (e.g., 255 for 8-bit data, 1 for double-precision floating-point) [88] [89].
• Neurotechnology Context: PSNR is useful for quantifying the performance of reconstruction algorithms, such as those that remove artifacts from a neural signal to reconstruct a cleaner trace. However, its limitation is that it may not correlate perfectly with human perception of signal quality, as it treats all errors equally regardless of their structural or spectral context [86].

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)

RMSE measures the square root of the average squared differences between predicted values and observed values. It is a scale-dependent measure of accuracy [90] [91].

• Formula: RMSE = √( (1/n) * Σ (y_i - ŷ_i)^2 ) [90] [91]
• Variables:
  • n: The total number of observations.
  • y_i: The actual or observed value.
  • Å·_i: The predicted or estimated value.
• Neurotechnology Context: RMSE is commonly used to evaluate the error in regression models, such as predicting the age of a subject from neural data or assessing the difference between a true neural signal and a signal reconstructed after artifact removal [90]. Its key advantage is that it is in the same units as the original signal, making it intuitively understandable.

Signal-to-Noise Ratio Improvement (SNRI)

SNRI quantifies the enhancement in signal quality achieved by a processing algorithm. It is a direct measure of how much an artifact removal method cleans up a signal.

• Formula: SNRI (dB) = SNR_output (dB) - SNR_input (dB) Where the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) for a signal s with noise n can be calculated as: SNR (dB) = 10 * log10( (Power of signal s) / (Power of noise n) ).
• Neurotechnology Context: This metric is paramount for reporting the performance of artifact removal techniques. For example, a Wiener filter-based artifact removal method was shown to provide an improvement of 25–40 dB in recording quality, a vast enhancement for neural signal analysis [85]. In spike sorting, a high input SNR is critical for effectively separating clusters in property space and avoiding errors in cross-correlation analyses [92].

Spectral Distortion (SD)

Spectral Distortion measures the perceptual difference between the original and processed signals in the frequency domain. It is crucial for evaluating how well an algorithm preserves the spectral integrity of neural oscillations (e.g., alpha, beta, gamma rhythms).

• Formula: A common formulation is the Mean Log-Spectral Distortion. SD = √( (1/K) * Σ [ 10 * log10(P_orig(f_k) / P_proc(f_k)) ]^2 ) Where the spectrum is evaluated over K frequency bins.
• Variables:
  • P_orig(f_k): Power spectral density of the original signal at frequency f_k.
  • P_proc(f_k): Power spectral density of the processed signal at frequency f_k.
• Neurotechnology Context: Spectral Distortion is vital for assessing the impact of artifact removal on oscillatory neural activity. Artifacts like muscle activity (EMG) produce broadband noise that overlaps with gamma rhythms, while line noise creates a sharp peak at 50/60 Hz [1]. An effective algorithm must remove these contaminants without distorting the underlying neural frequency bands, which is quantified by Spectral Distortion.

Table 1: Summary of Key Performance Metrics

Metric	Formula	Units	Primary Use Case	Key Advantage	Key Limitation
PSNR	20 · log10(MAX_f / √MSE)	Decibels (dB)	Quality of signal reconstruction	Simple, widely understood for image/video	Poor correlation with human perception in some cases [86]
RMSE	√( (1/n) · Σ (y_i - ŷ_i)^2 )	Original signal units (e.g., µV)	Model prediction accuracy; general error measurement	Intuitive, same units as the signal	Sensitive to outliers [91]
SNRI	SNR_output - SNR_input	Decibels (dB)	Quantifying enhancement from noise removal	Directly measures algorithm improvement	Requires a definition of "signal" vs. "noise"
Spectral Distortion	√( (1/K) · Σ [10·log10(P_orig(f_k)/P_proc(f_k))]^2 )	Dimensionless or dB	Preservation of spectral content	Evaluates critical frequency-domain features	Requires careful selection of frequency range

Experimental Protocols for Metric Evaluation

Protocol 1: Evaluating a Multi-channel Artifact Removal Wiener Filter

This protocol details the methodology for applying and evaluating a multi-input, multi-output Wiener filter for artifact removal, as described by [85].

1. Hypothesis: A linear Wiener filter, trained on known stimulation currents, can effectively predict and remove stimulus-evoked artifacts from multi-channel neural recordings.

2. Experimental Setup and Data Acquisition:

• Equipment: Multi-channel neural recording system (e.g., intracortical array, EEG), multi-channel electrical stimulator.
• Preparation: In vivo or in vitro preparation with stimulating and recording electrodes implanted in target neural tissue (e.g., auditory midbrain, sciatic nerve) [85].
• Stimulation Paradigm: Deliver a training set of electrical stimulation waveforms (x_n[k]). These should be broad-spectrum and varied (e.g., random amplitude pulses) to adequately probe the system. Record the resulting artifact-corrupted neural data (y_m[k]).

3. Algorithm Implementation:

• Model Assumption: The artifact is a linear, time-invariant transformation of the stimulation current: y_m[k] = Σ x_n[k] * h_nm[k], where h_nm is the impulse response between stimulation channel n and recording channel m [85].
• Filter Estimation: Use the Wiener-Hopf equation to compute the optimal filter matrix Ä¥ that minimizes the mean-squared error between the predicted and actual artifacts: Ä¥ = (C_xx)^-1 R_yx, where C_xx is the stimulus signal covariance matrix and R_yx is the cross-correlation matrix between the output and input signals [85].
• Artifact Removal: During testing, convolve the known stimulus waveform with the estimated filter Ä¥ to generate a prediction of the artifact. Subtract this prediction from the recorded signal to obtain the cleaned neural signal.

4. Performance Evaluation:

• Primary Metric: Signal-to-Noise Ratio Improvement (SNRI). Calculate the SNR of the recording before and after artifact subtraction. SNRI values in the range of 25–40 dB are indicative of excellent performance [85].
• Secondary Metrics:
  • RMSE: Compute the RMSE between the predicted artifact and the actual recorded artifact during a "neural silent" period to validate the linearity of the model.
  • Spectral Distortion: Calculate the Spectral Distortion between the cleaned signal and a baseline recording (no stimulation) to ensure neural spectral features are preserved.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key steps of this protocol:

Protocol 2: Benchmarking Spike Sorting Performance with SNR Improvement

This protocol assesses how improving the SNR of neural recordings impacts the critical task of spike sorting.

1. Hypothesis: SNR improvement techniques, such as PCA-based cleaning, will reduce spike sorting errors by enhancing the separation of clusters in feature space [92].

2. Experimental Setup and Data Acquisition:

• Equipment: Array of recording electrodes (e.g., tetrodes, silicon probes) with inter-electrode spacing of <100 µm [92].
• Data: Simulated or real extracellular recordings containing multiple single-unit activities and known sources of correlated noise (e.g., movement artifacts, distant neural populations).

3. Signal Processing and Analysis:

• SNR Improvement: Apply a noise-reduction algorithm like PCA-based cleaning [92]. This involves:
  • Computing the principal components of the multi-channel data.
  • Identifying components representing noise correlated across channels.
  • Reconstructing the signal without these noise components.
• Spike Sorting: Perform spike sorting (e.g., using wavelet features or PCA) on both the original data and the cleaned data. Cluster the detected spikes in a multi-dimensional feature space.

4. Performance Evaluation:

• Primary Metric: Cluster Quality Metrics. Measure the isolation distance and L-ratio between clusters in the original vs. cleaned data. A successful method will increase isolation distance and decrease L-ratio.
• Ground Truth Comparison: If using simulated data with known ground truth spike times, calculate the RMSE of the estimated firing rates or the false positive/negative rates of spike assignment.
• Supporting Metric: SNRI. Report the average SNR improvement per channel as contextual data.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Essential Materials for Neurotechnology Artifact Removal Research

Item Name	Function/Application	Example Use Case
Multi-Channel Neural Amplifier	Acquires simultaneous extracellular recordings from multiple electrodes.	Fundamental hardware for data collection in protocols 1 & 2 [85] [92].
Multi-Site Electrical Stimulator	Generates controlled, known current waveforms for stimulation.	Essential for the Wiener filter protocol to provide the known input signal x_n[k] [85].
Tetrode/Silicon Probe	Dense electrode arrays for recording multiple neurons.	Provides the spatial resolution needed for PCA-based noise cleaning and improved spike sorting [92].
Dendrotoxin (DTX)	Selective blocker of low-threshold potassium currents (I_KLT).	Used in vitro to manipulate neuronal excitability and study its effect on SNR at the cellular level [93].
Wiener Filter Algorithm	Estimates the linear transfer function between stimulus and artifact.	Core computational tool for the artifact prediction and removal method in Protocol 1 [85].
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	Blind source separation algorithm.	Common method for isolating and removing artifacts (e.g., ocular, muscle) from EEG recordings [1].

Visualization of Signaling Pathways and Workflows

The following diagram illustrates a generalized signal processing workflow for artifact removal in neurotechnology, integrating the metrics defined in this document for performance evaluation.

Benchmarking on Synthetic, Semi-Synthetic, and Real Neural Datasets

The advancement of neurotechnology, particularly in signal processing and artifact removal, relies heavily on the availability of high-quality, well-characterized datasets for developing and validating new algorithms. Benchmarks provide a controlled environment for comparing the performance of different methodologies, isolating their strengths and weaknesses, and tracking progress in the field. Within this context, neural datasets can be broadly categorized into three types: synthetic, semi-synthetic, and real datasets, each serving a unique purpose in the research pipeline.

Synthetic data is entirely computationally generated using generative models with fully known and controlled parameters. This allows for perfect ground truth and is invaluable for initial proof-of-concept and for understanding how algorithms behave under specific, isolated conditions [94]. Semi-synthetic data introduces a bridge between controlled simulation and real-world complexity. It often involves embedding a known signal or circuit into real background data or using a highly realistic but still known generative model [95]. Finally, real datasets consist of empirical recordings from biological neural systems, representing the ultimate target domain but often lacking perfect ground truth and containing uncontrollable confounding variables [13] [96].

A robust benchmarking framework is essential for objectively assessing neuromorphic computing algorithms and systems, fostering progress by allowing direct comparison between conventional and novel brain-inspired approaches [97]. The creation of reliable benchmark datasets requires careful consideration of representativeness, proper labeling by domain experts, and the identification of a specific use case to ensure the benchmark's validity and relevance [96].

Characterization of Dataset Types

The following table summarizes the core characteristics, advantages, and challenges of the three primary dataset types used in neurotechnology benchmarking.

Table 1: Comparison of Synthetic, Semi-Synthetic, and Real Neural Datasets

Feature	Synthetic Datasets	Semi-Synthetic Datasets	Real Datasets
Definition	Data entirely generated from computational models with defined parameters [94].	Real data augmented with synthetic elements, or realistic models with known ground truth [95].	Empirical recordings from biological neural systems [13].
Ground Truth	Perfectly known and controllable [94].	Known for the synthetic components, unknown for the real background.	Often unknown or imperfect (e.g., based on expert consensus) [96].
Primary Use Case	Initial algorithm validation, proof-of-concept studies, and controlled parameter testing [94].	Evaluating algorithm robustness and generalizability in realistic but controlled settings [95].	Final validation and performance assessment for real-world deployment [96].
Key Advantages	- Full control over parameters & complexity.- Enables analysis of specific causal effects [94].- Unlimited supply.	- Balances realism and control.- More realistic than purely synthetic data.- Helps test generalizability.	- Ultimate test for real-world applicability.- Captures full biological complexity.
Key Challenges	- May lack biophysical realism [94].- Risk of over-simplification.	- Can be complex to generate.- The real background may introduce its own biases.	- Lack of perfect ground truth [96].- Costly and time-consuming to acquire.- Often contains artifacts and noise [1].

Application Notes for Neurotechnology Signal Processing

The choice of dataset type is critical in the development pipeline for neurotechnology signal processing, especially for artifact removal research. Each dataset type finds its place at different stages of the methodology.

The Role of Synthetic Data in Method Development

Synthetic datasets are particularly valuable in the early stages of developing new artifact removal algorithms. For instance, simple generative models like Multivariate Autoregressive (MVAR) processes can simulate the dynamics of local field potentials (LFPs) with specified connectivity and interaction delays [94]. This allows researchers to test whether a novel algorithm can recover the known causal structure in a setting free from the complex noise and artifacts inherent in real data. Similarly, synthetic models can generate realistic artifact waveforms, such as those from functional electrical stimulation (FES), which can be added to a clean synthetic neural signal. This enables precise quantification of an algorithm's ability to separate signal from artifact under controlled conditions [13].

Semi-Synthetic Data for Robust Validation

Semi-synthetic datasets provide a more stringent test by introducing real-world variability. A prime example is the InterpBench benchmark, which provides semi-synthetic transformers with known internal circuits [95]. In the context of artifact removal, a semi-synthetic approach could involve recording real neural data with simultaneous monitoring of artifact sources (e.g., EOG for eye blinks, EMG for muscle activity). The known artifact templates can then be manipulated or added to different neural data segments to create a challenging and realistic testbed. This approach helps answer whether an algorithm that works on purely synthetic data can generalize to more complex, real neural backgrounds, thus testing its robustness before deployment on fully real datasets.

Real Data for Final Performance Assessment

Ultimately, any artifact removal method must be validated on fully real datasets. These datasets capture the full complexity of the recording environment, including unexpected noise sources, non-stationarities, and the true interplay between neural signals and artifacts. However, the absence of perfect ground truth is a major challenge [96]. Performance is often assessed indirectly by measuring the improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio, the preservation of expected neural correlates (e.g., event-related potentials), or the performance of a downstream task like brain-computer interface (BCI) decoding [13]. For example, the performance of artifact removal methods like Linear Regression Reference (LRR) was ultimately validated by how well they restored the decoding performance of an intracortical BCI during functional electrical stimulation [13].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

This section outlines detailed protocols for generating and using different dataset types to benchmark artifact removal methods.

Protocol 1: Generating a Synthetic Benchmark with MVAR Models

This protocol describes creating a synthetic dataset to test a algorithm's ability to recover directed functional connectivity in the presence of simulated artifacts.

1. Objective: To generate a synthetic neuronal dataset with known effective connectivity and added simulated artifacts for benchmarking Granger Causality (GC) or other connectivity metrics [94].

2. Materials and Software:

• MATLAB, Python (with NumPy/SciPy), or similar computational environment.
• Custom scripts to implement MVAR modeling and artifact simulation.

3. Procedure:

• Step 1: Define the MVAR Model Network. Specify a bivariate AR(2) model where node X1 influences node X2 with a delay d21 and interaction strength defined by parameter φ211 [94]: X1(t) = φ111 * X1(t-1) + φ112 * X1(t-2) + w1(t) X2(t) = φ221 * X2(t-1) + φ222 * X2(t-2) + φ211 * X1(t-d21) + w2(t) where w1 and w2 are independent white noise processes.
• Step 2: Parameterize the Model. Set the autoregressive coefficients (φ111, φ112, φ221, φ222) to place the spectral peak frequency of each node's activity in a desired band (e.g., gamma band). The coupling coefficient φ211 controls the strength of causality from X1 to X2 [94].
• Step 3: Simulate the Clean LFP Time-Series. Iterate the model equations for a desired number of time steps to generate the baseline local field potential data.
• Step 4: Introduce Synthetic Artifacts. Simulate a common artifact, such as a 50 Hz line noise, by adding a sinusoidal waveform to the simulated LFP. Alternatively, simulate motion artifacts by adding random low-frequency drifts or large-amplitude transient spikes to a subset of channels.
• Step 5: Apply Forward Models (Optional). To create more realistic signals, pass the simulated LFPs through a forward model. For EEG, use a three-shell head model. For fMRI, use the Balloon-Windkessel model to generate a BOLD signal [94].
• Step 6: Output and Validation. Output the synthetic data, the known connectivity pattern, and the ground truth artifact locations. Validate that the simulated data exhibits the expected spectral properties and that the true causal relationship is detectable with a standard method on the clean data.

Protocol 2: Creating a Semi-Synthetic Benchmark with Real Artifacts

This protocol creates a more realistic benchmark by adding real recorded artifacts to real neural data, providing a known ground truth for the artifact.

1. Objective: To create a semi-synthetic dataset for evaluating artifact removal algorithms by combining real neural recordings with real artifact templates [95] [13].

2. Materials and Software:

• Real neural recording (e.g., EEG, iEEG) with minimal artifacts.
• Simultaneously recorded artifact triggers or templates (e.g., EOG, EMG, or stimulation artifact markers).
• Signal processing toolbox (e.g., EEGLAB, FieldTrip, or custom Python/MATLAB code).

3. Procedure:

• Step 1: Curate a "Clean" Neural Dataset. Identify segments of real neural data that are largely free of the target artifact. This can be verified by expert review or automated methods.
• Step 2: Extract Real Artifact Templates. From other parts of the recording (or a separate recording session), isolate clean examples of the target artifact (e.g., individual eye-blink waveforms from the EOG channel or stimulation artifacts from the trigger signal).
• Step 3: Artifact Injection. Add the extracted artifact templates to the "clean" neural data at random time points. The amplitude of the injected artifact can be scaled to create varying levels of contamination and signal-to-noise ratios.
• Step 4: Generate Ground Truth Labels. Create a binary mask or a continuous trace that precisely marks the timing and amplitude of the injected artifacts. This serves as the ground truth for the benchmark.
• Step 5: Dataset Partitioning. Split the semi-synthetic dataset into training, validation, and test sets, ensuring that artifact templates are not shared across splits to prevent overfitting.

Protocol 3: Benchmarking on a Real Dataset with Expert Labels

This protocol outlines the process for evaluating an artifact removal algorithm on a fully real dataset, where ground truth is established through expert consensus.

1. Objective: To evaluate the performance and generalizability of an artifact removal algorithm on a real neural dataset with expert-annotated artifacts [96].

2. Materials and Software:

• A real neural dataset (e.g., from a public repository or in-house collection).
• Expert-labeled annotations of artifacts (e.g., marked by one or more trained neurologists or signal processing experts).
• Computing environment for running the algorithm and statistical analysis.

3. Procedure:

• Step 1: Dataset Selection. Select a real dataset that is representative of the target application, with diversity in subjects, recording sessions, and artifact types [96].
• Step 2: Define Performance Metrics. Choose metrics relevant to the end goal. For artifact removal, these could include:
  • Reduction in artifact power in the labeled regions.
  • Preservation of neural signal in clean regions (e.g., via power spectral density comparison).
  • Improvement in downstream task performance (e.g., BCI classification accuracy) [13].
• Step 3: Algorithm Application. Apply the artifact removal algorithm to the held-out test set of the real dataset.
• Step 4: Quantitative Evaluation. Calculate the predefined performance metrics by comparing the algorithm's output to the expert labels and the unprocessed data.
• Step 5: Qualitative Evaluation. Have domain experts review the processed data to identify any introduced distortions or residual artifacts that may not be captured by quantitative metrics alone [96].

Visualization of Benchmarking Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the logical workflows for the benchmarking protocols described above.

Synthetic Data Benchmarking Workflow

Semi-Synthetic Data Benchmarking Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagents and Materials

This table details key software, models, and methodological components essential for conducting benchmarking studies in neural signal processing.

Table 2: Essential Research Tools for Neural Dataset Benchmarking

Tool Category	Specific Example	Function in Benchmarking
Generative Models	Multivariate Autoregressive (MVAR) Processes [94]	Generates synthetic linear time-series data with definable causal connectivity for controlled tests.
Generative Models	Izhikevich Spiking Neuron Model [94]	Simulates realistic, non-linear spiking activity of neurons for more biophysically plausible synthetic data.
Generative Models	Neural Mass Models [94]	Simulates the average activity of neuronal populations using stochastic differential equations.
Forward Models	Balloon-Windkessel Model [94]	Converts simulated neural activity into a synthetic fMRI BOLD signal, incorporating hemodynamics.
Forward Models	Three-Shell Head Model [94]	A forward model for EEG that simulates how electrical currents propagate from the brain to scalp electrodes.
Benchmark Frameworks	NeuroBench [97]	A comprehensive framework for benchmarking neuromorphic computing algorithms and systems, including metrics for correctness and complexity.
Benchmark Frameworks	InterpBench [95]	Provides semi-synthetic transformers with known circuits for evaluating mechanistic interpretability techniques.
Artifact Removal Methods	Linear Regression Reference (LRR) [13]	A signal processing method that creates channel-specific references from other channels to subtract artifacts.
Artifact Removal Methods	Common Average Reference (CAR) [13]	A simple artifact reduction technique that subtracts the average signal of all channels from each individual channel.
Artifact Removal Methods	Independent Component Analysis (ICA) [1]	A blind source separation technique used to isolate and remove artifact components from neural signals like EEG.

Comparative Analysis of Traditional vs. Machine Learning Methods

The analysis of neural signals, such as electroencephalography (EEG), is fundamental to advancing neurotechnology for clinical diagnostics, neuroscience research, and therapeutic applications. However, a significant challenge in this domain is the presence of artifacts—unwanted signals originating from non-neural sources, including ocular movements, muscle activity, cardiac rhythms, and environmental interference [9] [11]. Effective artifact removal is critical, as residual artifacts can lead to misinterpretation of brain activity, potentially resulting in misdiagnosis in clinical settings or invalid conclusions in research [9]. For decades, traditional signal processing methods have been the cornerstone of artifact management. Recently, machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) approaches have emerged as powerful alternatives. This article provides a detailed comparative analysis of these methodologies, framed within the context of neurotechnology signal processing, and offers structured application notes and experimental protocols for researchers and scientists.

Quantitative Comparative Analysis

The table below summarizes the core characteristics, performance, and resource requirements of traditional and machine learning-based methods for artifact removal in neural signals.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Artifact Removal Methods

Aspect	Traditional Methods	Machine/Deep Learning Methods
Core Principle	Signal decomposition, regression, or filtering based on pre-defined statistical or spectral characteristics [9].	Automated feature extraction and pattern recognition from data [98] [99].
Key Algorithms/Models	Independent Component Analysis (ICA), Regression, Wavelet Transform, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [9] [11].	Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) [33] [11] [100].
Data Requirements	Effective on smaller, structured datasets [98] [101]. Often requires only the signal of interest.	Requires large volumes of data for training; complex models may need millions of samples [98] [101].
Feature Engineering	Relies on manual feature engineering and domain expertise to identify distinguishing signal characteristics [98] [99].	Performs automatic feature extraction directly from raw data, eliminating the need for manual intervention [98] [99].
Computational Load	Lower computational requirements; can often run on standard CPUs [98] [102].	High computational cost; typically requires GPUs or TPUs for efficient training and inference [98] [101].
Interpretability	Generally high interpretability; the logic behind signal separation or rejection is often transparent [98].	Often considered a "black box"; decision-making process can be difficult to interpret and trace [98] [99].
Performance on Complex Artifacts	May struggle with high-dimensional data or highly complex patterns that are difficult to capture manually, especially in low-density EEG setups [98] [9].	Excels at identifying complex, non-linear patterns in unstructured data; can adapt to novel artifact types with sufficient training [98] [11].
Example Performance (NMSE/RMSE)	Higher NMSE and RMSE values compared to DL in benchmark studies, indicating less accurate reconstruction of the clean signal [11].	Lower NMSE and RMSE values, as demonstrated by models like AnEEG, indicating superior signal reconstruction and agreement with ground truth [11].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol for Artifact Removal using Independent Component Analysis (ICA)

This protocol details the application of ICA, a widely used traditional method, for artifact removal from EEG data.

Objective: To separate and remove biological artifacts (e.g., ocular, cardiac) from multi-channel EEG data using blind source separation.

Materials:

• Raw multi-channel EEG data.
• Computing environment with software capable of ICA (e.g., EEGLAB for MATLAB, MNE-Python).

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Import the continuous EEG data. Apply a high-pass filter (e.g., 1 Hz cutoff) to remove slow drifts and a low-pass filter (e.g., 40-70 Hz) to reduce high-frequency noise. Bad channels should be identified and removed or interpolated.
• Data Segmentation: Segment the data into epochs if working with event-related potentials (ERPs). For continuous data, this step is optional but can be performed to improve computational efficiency.
• ICA Decomposition: Run the ICA algorithm (e.g., Infomax or FastICA) on the preprocessed data. This step decomposes the multi-channel EEG data into a set of independent components (ICs).
• Component Identification: Visually inspect the topographical maps, power spectra, and time-course of each IC. Identify components corresponding to known artifacts:
  • Ocular Artifacts: Look for components with strong frontal scalp distributions and time-courses that correlate with eye-blink events.
  • Muscle Artifacts: Look for components with high-frequency activity and a broadly distributed or temporally-focused topography.
  • Cardiac Artifacts: Look for components with a rhythmic pattern matching the heart rate.
• Artifact Removal: Select the ICs identified as artifacts and remove them from the data.
• Signal Reconstruction: Reconstruct the EEG signal using the remaining, neural-origin ICs. The output is the artifact-corrected EEG dataset.

Protocol for Artifact Removal using a Deep Learning Model (e.g., GAN with LSTM)

This protocol outlines the methodology for employing a deep learning model, specifically an LSTM-enhanced Generative Adversarial Network (GAN), for end-to-end artifact removal.

Objective: To train a deep learning model to map raw, artifact-laden EEG signals to their clean counterparts.

Materials:

• A dataset of paired EEG data: raw artifact-contaminated signals and their corresponding ground-truth clean signals [11].
• Computing environment with deep learning frameworks (e.g., TensorFlow, PyTorch) and access to GPUs.

Procedure:

• Data Preparation & Augmentation: Split the paired dataset into training, validation, and test sets. Apply data augmentation techniques (e.g., adding minor noise, scaling, time-warping) to the training set to improve model generalizability and prevent overfitting.
• Model Architecture Definition:
  • Generator: Design a network that takes noisy EEG as input and outputs a clean signal. This often involves an encoder-decoder structure with LSTM layers to capture temporal dependencies [11].
  • Discriminator: Design a network (e.g., a 1D Convolutional Neural Network) that takes either a generated (clean) signal or a true clean signal and classifies it as "real" or "fake" [11].
• Model Training: Train the GAN in an adversarial manner.
  • The generator tries to produce clean EEG that is indistinguishable from the ground truth.
  • The discriminator learns to better distinguish between real clean signals and those generated by the generator.
  • The training involves minimizing a combined loss function, which may include adversarial loss from the discriminator and a temporal-spatial loss (e.g., Mean Squared Error) between the generated signal and the ground truth [11].
• Model Validation & Testing: Use the validation set to monitor training and avoid overfitting. Finally, evaluate the trained model on the held-out test set to assess its performance on unseen data.
• Inference: Use the trained generator model to process new, artifact-contaminated EEG data and output the denoised signal.

Visualization of Methodologies

The following diagrams illustrate the core workflows for the traditional and deep learning approaches.

ICA-Based Artifact Removal Workflow

Deep Learning Artifact Removal Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Materials and Tools for Artifact Removal Research

Item	Function & Application in Research
Wearable EEG Systems with Dry Electrodes	Enables brain monitoring in real-world, ecological settings, which is crucial for studying artifacts under motion and uncontrolled conditions [9]. Typically have a low channel count (≤16).
High-Density EEG Systems (≥64 channels)	Provides high spatial resolution, which is beneficial for traditional source separation methods like ICA, allowing for more effective isolation of artifactual components [9].
Auxiliary Sensors (IMU, EOG, EMG)	Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) can detect motion artifacts. Simultaneous recording of Electrooculography (EOG) and Electromyography (EMG) provides reference channels to guide the identification of ocular and muscular artifacts [9].
Public EEG Datasets (e.g., PhysioNet, EEG Eye Artefact Dataset)	Provide standardized, often labeled data for training and benchmarking machine learning models, ensuring reproducibility and comparison across different studies [11].
Computational Hardware (GPUs/TPUs)	Essential for reducing the training time of deep learning models from weeks to hours or days, making DL approaches feasible for research and development [98] [101].
Signal Processing Software (EEGLAB, MNE-Python)	Open-source software toolboxes that provide implemented and validated functions for a wide range of traditional methods like filtering, ICA, and wavelet analysis [9].
Deep Learning Frameworks (TensorFlow, PyTorch)	Provide flexible environments for building, training, and deploying custom deep learning architectures like GANs and LSTMs for artifact removal [11].

Validation is a critical and multi-stage process in neurotechnology development, ensuring that devices and algorithms are not only effective but also safe and reliable for clinical and research use. This process is particularly challenging in the realm of signal processing, where the accurate distinction between neural signals and artifacts directly impacts diagnostic accuracy and device performance. Artifact removal—the process of identifying and eliminating non-neural signals from data—is a cornerstone of reliable neurotechnology. The validation of these artifact removal methods requires rigorous, context-specific protocols. This document outlines application notes and detailed experimental protocols for the validation of signal processing techniques, with a specific focus on artifact removal, within three key areas: epileptic seizure forecasting, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for communication, and auditory neuroprosthetics. The frameworks presented herein are designed to meet the needs of researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working at the intersection of engineering and clinical neuroscience.

Current Validation Practices and Quantitative Landscape

The validation of neurotechnologies varies significantly across applications, driven by differences in primary endpoints, data modalities, and intended use environments. The table below summarizes the current state of validation metrics, key artifacts, and performance benchmarks based on recent literature.

Table 1: Current Validation Practices in Key Neurotechnology Domains

Application Domain	Primary Validation Metrics	Reported Performance (from cited studies)	Key Signal Modalities	Primary Artifacts of Concern
Epilepsy Seizure Forecasting	Sensitivity, Specificity, High-Risk Time Reduction [103]	Sensitivity: 11% increase; High-Risk Time: 29% reduction [103]	Wearable EEG, Accelerometry (ACM), Heart Rate [103] [104]	Motion artifacts, muscle activity (EMG), poor electrode contact [104]
Speech BCIs	Word Intelligibility, Signal Delay, Information Transfer Rate [105]	Word Intelligibility: ~60%; Delay: 25 ms [105]	Invasive microelectrode arrays (ECoG) [105]	Muscle artifacts from attempted speech, environmental interference
Auditory Neuroprosthetics	Speech Perception Scores, Neural Response Telemetry, Biomarker Standardization [106]	Focus on qualitative "biologically informed predictive modeling" [106]	EEG, ECoG, Electrical Compound Action Potentials [106]	Ocular (EOG), muscle (EMG), and cardiac (ECG) artifacts [106] [1]
General EEG/BCI Artifact Removal	Mean Squared Error (MSE), Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Component Classification Accuracy [107]	ART model surpasses other deep-learning methods [107]	Multichannel EEG [108] [2] [107]	Ocular, muscular, cardiac, motion, and electrode pop [2] [1]

A critical observation from the current landscape is the fragmentation of biological data and a lack of standardized biomarkers, which is explicitly noted as a major limitation in the field of auditory neuroprosthetics [106]. This underscores the need for the robust and standardized validation protocols detailed in the following sections.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

This section provides step-by-step methodologies for key validation experiments, with a focus on benchmarking artifact removal techniques.

Protocol: Validating a Hybrid Seizure Forecasting System

This protocol is adapted from a pseudo-prospective study using long-term wearable data [103].

1. Objective: To benchmark the performance of a novel seizure forecasting system against traditional models using ultra-long-term, non-invasive wearable data.

2. Experimental Setup:

• Participants: Recruit participants with epilepsy (e.g., n=11 as in source study) for long-term monitoring [103].
• Duration: Aim for extended continuous monitoring (e.g., average of 337 days) to capture sufficient seizure and inter-seizure data [103].
• Equipment:
  • Wrist-worn wearable device to capture heart rate and step count (3-axis accelerometer).
  • EEG system (conventional or wearable) to serve as the gold standard for seizure annotation.
  • Data synchronization system to align wearable and EEG data streams.

3. Procedure:

• Data Acquisition: Collect continuous, synchronized data from all devices.
• Seizure Annotation: Have expert neurologists review the EEG recordings to mark the precise onset and offset of seizures. These annotations serve as the ground truth.
• Model Development & Training:
  • Develop two hybrid models combining machine learning and cycle-based methods.
  • The Seizure Warning System (SWS) should be designed for short-horizon (minutes) forecasting.
  • The Seizure Risk System (SRS) should be designed for long-horizon (up to 44 days) risk forecasting [103].
  • Train models on a portion of the data, using features from the wearable device (heart rate, accelerometry).

4. Validation & Analysis:

• Pseudo-Prospective Testing: Test the trained models on a held-out portion of the data not used for training, simulating real-world deployment.
• Performance Benchmarking: Compare the SWS and SRS against traditional forecasting models using key metrics:
  • Sensitivity: Proportion of actual seizures correctly forecasted.
  • Specificity: Proportion of non-seizure periods correctly identified.
  • High-Risk Time Reduction: Reduction in the total time the system spends in a high-risk alert state [103].

Protocol: Benchmarking an EEG Artifact Removal Algorithm

This protocol outlines a general framework for validating artifact removal pipelines, synthesizing methods from multiple sources [2] [107] [1].

1. Objective: To quantitatively and qualitatively compare the performance of a novel artifact removal algorithm against established baseline methods.

2. Dataset Curation:

• Public Datasets: Utilize open EEG datasets that contain a variety of artifacts (e.g., ocular, muscle, motion). Using public datasets ensures reproducibility and fair comparison.
• Synthetic Datasets: Generate semi-synthetic data by adding clean artifacts (e.g., from EOG/EMG recordings) to known clean EEG signals. This provides a clear ground truth [107].
• In-House Data: Collect EEG data in controlled and ecological conditions, using auxiliary sensors (electrooculogram EOG, electromyogram EMG, inertial measurement units IMU) to provide reference signals for artifacts [2].

3. Experimental Procedure:

• Apply Algorithms: Process the curated datasets using the novel algorithm and several baseline methods (e.g., ICA, wavelet transforms, ASR, other deep learning models).
• Performance Metrics Calculation: For datasets with a clean ground truth (synthetic or with clean segments), calculate quantitative metrics:
  • Mean Squared Error (MSE) between the cleaned signal and the clean ground truth.
  • Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) improvement.
• Qualitative & Component Analysis:
  • Visual Inspection: Experts should visually compare raw and cleaned data for residual artifacts and signal distortion.
  • Source Localization: Check if cleaning alters the spatial distribution of neural sources.
  • Component Classification: Use a separate classifier to determine if the cleaning process improves the decoding of neural signals (e.g., for BCI applications) [107].

4. Downstream Task Validation:

• The ultimate validation is performance on a real-world task. For a BCI, this means testing if the artifact removal improves the Information Transfer Rate (ITR). For clinical EEG, it could mean improved sensitivity/specificity in detecting epileptiform discharges.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key stages of this validation protocol.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Successful experimentation in neurotechnology requires a suite of reliable tools and materials. The following table details essential components for setting up and conducting validation experiments, particularly for artifact management and BCI applications.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Neurotechnology Validation

Item Name / Category	Function / Application	Key Characteristics & Notes
Dry or Semi-Wet Electrodes	Enable rapid setup for wearable EEG systems, facilitating long-term and ambulatory monitoring [2].	Reduce preparation time but may be more prone to motion artifacts and higher impedance compared to wet electrodes.
Auxiliary Sensors (EOG, EMG, IMU)	Provide reference signals for physiological artifacts (eye movement, muscle activity, motion) to enhance artifact detection and removal algorithms [2].	Critical for creating high-quality training data for supervised artifact removal models and for validating motion-related artifacts in wearable systems.
Portable/Wearable EEG Systems	Allow for data acquisition in ecological settings (home, real-world) rather than constrained lab environments [108] [104].	Typically feature a low number of channels (<16), dry electrodes, and are optimized for power consumption and portability.
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	A classic blind source separation technique used to isolate and remove artifacts like ocular and muscular activity from multichannel EEG data [108] [1].	Requires multichannel data and can be computationally intensive. Effectiveness may be reduced with low-channel-count wearable systems [2].
Artifact Removal Transformer (ART)	An advanced deep learning model using transformer architecture for end-to-end denoising of multichannel EEG, addressing multiple artifact types simultaneously [107].	Demonstrates state-of-the-art performance by capturing transient, millisecond-scale dynamics in EEG signals. Requires noisy-clean data pairs for training.
Wavelet Transform	A signal processing technique used for artifact detection and removal, providing a time-frequency representation that helps identify localized artifacts [108] [2].	Particularly effective for non-stationary signals and is often used in conjunction with thresholding rules to identify and remove artifactual components.

Signaling Pathways and Logical Workflows

Understanding the logical flow of information and control in a neurotechnology system is vital for its validation. The following diagram depicts the core closed-loop pathway of an adaptive auditory neuroprosthetic, which leverages artificial intelligence to dynamically adjust its function based on neural feedback.

Diagram Description: This diagram illustrates the closed-loop operation of an AI-enhanced auditory neuroprosthetic (e.g., a cochlear implant). The process begins with an external acoustic signal being processed by an AI algorithm. The algorithm dictates an electrical stimulation pattern delivered to the auditory nerve. The evoked neural response is recorded, and the signal undergoes critical artifact removal and feature extraction to isolate the true neural signal from noise. Key biomarkers of auditory performance are then analyzed. This extracted information serves as a feedback signal for the AI model, which adapts the stimulation strategy in real-time or across sessions. This continuous loop of stimulation, recording, artifact-free analysis, and adaptation enables personalized fitting and dynamic optimization of the device for the user [106].

Electroencephalography (EEG) is a fundamental tool in neuroscience and clinical diagnostics, prized for its high temporal resolution and non-invasiveness. However, the signals it records are persistently contaminated by physiological and non-physiological artifacts, which can severely compromise data integrity and lead to misleading conclusions. This application note provides a systematic evaluation of predominant artifact removal methodologies—Independent Component Analysis (ICA), Wavelet Transform, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), and advanced Hybrid techniques. Framed within a broader neurotechnology signal processing thesis, this document offers detailed protocols and performance comparisons to guide researchers and drug development professionals in selecting and implementing optimal artifact removal strategies for their specific applications.

Key Techniques for EEG Artifact Removal

• Independent Component Analysis (ICA): A blind source separation technique that decomposes multi-channel EEG signals into statistically independent components (ICs). Artifactual ICs are identified and removed before signal reconstruction. A key advantage is its ability to separate neural and non-neural sources without reference signals. However, its effectiveness can be limited by imperfect component separation, potentially leading to the removal of neural signals along with artifacts and introducing bias in subsequent analyses [109] [110].

• Wavelet Transform: This method provides a time-frequency representation of the EEG signal, making it highly effective for analyzing non-stationary signals. Artifacts are removed by thresholding or modifying coefficients in the wavelet domain before reconstructing the signal. It is particularly adept at localizing transient artifacts, such as those from muscle movements or eye blinks, without requiring multiple data channels [111].

• Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN): Deep learning approaches, particularly 1D-CNNs, autonomously learn to extract salient morphological features from raw EEG waveforms and separate clean EEG from artifacts in an end-to-end manner. They overcome the need for manual feature engineering or reference channels and demonstrate a strong capability to remove various artifact types, including EMG and EOG [43].

• Hybrid Techniques: These methods integrate the strengths of multiple approaches to overcome the limitations of individual techniques. Promising architectures include combinations of CNN with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks for joint spatial-temporal feature learning, and frameworks that fuse ICA or regression with other signal processing methods for more targeted artifact reduction [43] [109] [112].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Various Artifact Removal Methods

Method	Architecture/Type	Artifact Type	Key Performance Metrics	Reported Performance
Targeted ICA	RELAX Pipeline [110]	Ocular & Muscle	Reduces effect size inflation & source localization bias	Effective cleaning, minimizes neural signal loss
Hybrid DL	CLEnet (CNN-LSTM with EMA-1D) [43]	Mixed (EMG+EOG)	SNR: 11.50 dB, CC: 0.925RRMSEt: 0.300, RRMSEf: 0.319	Outperforms 1D-ResCNN, NovelCNN, DuoCL
Hybrid DL	CLEnet (CNN-LSTM with EMA-1D) [43]	ECG	SNR: 5.13% ↑, CC: 0.75% ↑RRMSEt: 8.08% ↓, RRMSEf: 5.76% ↓	Superior to DuoCL model
Hybrid Feature Learning	STFT + Connectivity Features [113]	Mental Attention Classification	Cross-session Accuracy: 86.27% & 94.01%	Significantly outperforms traditional methods
Hybrid ICA–Regression	Automated ICA + Regression [109]	Ocular	Lower MSE & MAE; Higher Mutual Information	Outperforms ICA, Regression, wICA, REGICA
Wavelet-Based	Cross-Wavelet + AlexNet [111]	PCG Signal Classification	Classification Accuracy: 99.25% (Noise-free)	Effective for non-stationary bio-signals

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Hybrid Deep Learning for Multi-Artifact Removal (CLEnet)

This protocol details the procedure for using the CLEnet architecture to remove multiple types of artifacts from EEG data [43].

I. Experimental Preparation and Dataset

• Datasets: Utilize semi-synthetic datasets (e.g., from EEGdenoiseNet) containing clean EEG, EOG, and EMG signals. For validation, include a real 32-channel EEG dataset collected from subjects performing cognitive tasks (e.g., n-back task).
• Data Preprocessing: Band-pass filter raw EEG signals (e.g., 0.5-45 Hz). For semi-synthetic data, mix clean EEG and artifact signals at specific Signal-to-Noise Ratios (SNRs). Segment data into epochs.

II. Network Architecture and Training

• Model Setup: Implement the dual-branch CLEnet.
  • Branch 1 (Morphological Features): Employ two 1D-CNN streams with different kernel sizes (e.g., 3 and 15) to extract multi-scale features. Integrate a 1D Efficient Multi-scale Attention (EMA-1D) module after convolutional layers to enhance relevant features.
  • Branch 2 (Temporal Features): Feed the features from Branch 1 through a Fully Connected layer for dimensionality reduction, then into an LSTM layer to model temporal dependencies.
• Training Configuration: Use Mean Squared Error (MSE) between the model's output and the clean EEG reference as the loss function. Use the Adam optimizer. Perform end-to-end training.

III. Evaluation and Validation

• Performance Metrics: Calculate Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Average Correlation Coefficient (CC), Relative Root Mean Square Error in temporal (RRMSEt) and frequency (RRMSEf) domains.
• Comparative Analysis: Benchmark CLEnet performance against other models like 1D-ResCNN, NovelCNN, and DuoCL on the same test datasets for all artifact types (EMG, EOG, ECG, mixed).

Protocol 2: Targeted Artifact Reduction with ICA (RELAX)

This protocol outlines the steps for the RELAX method, which refines standard ICA by targeting artifact removal to specific periods or frequencies, thereby preserving neural signals [110].

I. Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

• EEG Recording: Record multi-channel EEG data according to the international 10-20 system. Simultaneously record EOG signals if possible for validation.
• Preprocessing: Apply a high-pass filter (e.g., 1 Hz cutoff). Downsample data to a computationally manageable sampling rate (e.g., 256 Hz). Bad channels should be identified and interpolated.

II. Targeted Artifact Removal Workflow

• ICA Decomposition: Perform ICA (e.g., using Infomax algorithm) on the preprocessed EEG data to obtain Independent Components (ICs).
• Automatic Component Classification: Use the RELAX pipeline to automatically classify ICs as neural or artifactual (ocular, muscle). This utilizes metrics like composite multi-scale entropy and kurtosis [109].
• Targeted Cleaning:
  • For Ocular Components: Identify the time periods containing high-amplitude artifacts (e.g., using median absolute deviation). Subtract the ocular component's activity only during these specific periods.
  • For Muscle Components: Apply spectral filtering to remove power only above 20 Hz from these components, preserving the lower-frequency neural information.
• Signal Reconstruction: Project the cleaned components back to the sensor space to obtain the artifact-reduced EEG.

III. Outcome Assessment

• Quantitative Metrics: Compare event-related potential (ERP) effect sizes and functional connectivity metrics before and after cleaning. The goal is to avoid the artificial inflation of these metrics that can occur with full-component rejection.
• Source Localization: Compare source localization estimates from the cleaned data and the raw data to assess the reduction in bias.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 2: Key Reagents and Materials for EEG Artifact Removal Research

Item Name	Specification / Example	Primary Function in Research
High-Density EEG System	32+ channels; Active/passive electrodes [114]	Captures detailed spatial neural activity; essential for ICA and spatial filtering methods.
Reference EOG/EMG Sensors	Bipolar placements near eyes & mastoid muscles [109]	Provides reference signals for validating and training artifact removal algorithms (e.g., for regression).
EEG Conductive Gel/Paste	Standard NaCl-based or high-viscosity gel	Ensures stable electrode-skin contact impedance, minimizing non-physiological noise.
Physiological Signal Simulator	Equipment to generate synthetic EEG/artifact signals [43]	Validates artifact removal algorithms by creating semi-synthetic datasets with known ground truth.
Data Processing Software	EEGLAB, RELAX plugin, Python, TensorFlow [43] [110]	Provides environment for implementing, testing, and benchmarking artifact removal pipelines.
Public EEG Datasets	EEGdenoiseNet, STEW, PhysioNet [43] [112]	Offers standardized, annotated data for reproducible algorithm development and comparison.
Neurology EMR Software	Specialized electronic medical records [114]	Integrates clinical data with EEG recordings for translational research and outcome tracking.

Computational Efficiency and Implementation Complexity Assessment

Within neurotechnology signal processing, effective artifact removal is a critical prerequisite for accurate brain signal interpretation. The pursuit of higher performance in this domain is increasingly balanced against stringent computational constraints, particularly for real-time applications and implantable devices. This assessment evaluates the computational efficiency and implementation complexity of contemporary artifact removal techniques, providing a framework for researchers and drug development professionals to select appropriate methodologies for specific neurotechnology applications. The evaluation is contextualized within the broader research landscape of neural signal processing, where the trade-off between algorithmic sophistication and practical deployability represents a central challenge.

Quantitative Comparison of Artifact Removal Methods

Table 1: Computational Efficiency Metrics for Prominent Artifact Removal Algorithms

Method	Theoretical Basis	Processing Latency	Power Consumption	Hardware Efficiency	Key Applications
Transformer-based (ART) [107]	Self-attention mechanism	Moderate to High	High	Low (requires high-performance computing)	Research-grade EEG denoising, offline analysis
Hybrid CNN-LSTM (CLEnet) [43]	Convolutional + recurrent neural networks	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate (GPU-accelerated workstations)	Multi-channel EEG, unknown artifact removal
Channel Attention Mechanism [10]	Feature weighting + correlation analysis	Low to Moderate	Low to Moderate	Moderate (embedded AI processors)	OPM-MEG physiological artifact removal
On-Implant Spike Detection [24]	Threshold-based detection + compression	Very Low	Very Low	High (ultra-low-power ASICs)	Brain-implantable devices, closed-loop systems
ICA-based Methods [2]	Blind source separation	Variable (depends on data size)	Low	High (general-purpose processors)	Wearable EEG, standard clinical systems

Table 2: Implementation Complexity Assessment Across Critical Dimensions

Method	Development Complexity	Integration Effort	Parameter Tuning	Data Requirements	Scalability to High Channel Counts
Transformer-based (ART) [107]	Very High	High	Extensive hyperparameter optimization	Massive labeled datasets (noisy-clean pairs)	Moderate (memory constraints with attention)
Hybrid CNN-LSTM (CLEnet) [43]	High	Moderate	Architecture-dependent optimization	Large datasets (semi-synthetic training)	Good (efficient spatial-temporal processing)
Channel Attention Mechanism [10]	Moderate to High	Moderate	Attention mechanism calibration	Reference signal correlations	Excellent (modular sensor integration)
On-Implant Spike Detection [24]	High (hardware-software co-design)	High (system-level optimization)	Circuit-level precision tuning	Limited (unsupervised adaptation)	Excellent (parallel processing architecture)
ICA-based Methods [2]	Low	Low	Minimal (standardized pipelines)	Moderate channel count requirements	Poor (performance degrades with low-density EEG)

Experimental Protocols for Method Evaluation

Protocol 1: Transformer-Based Artifact Removal Validation

Objective: To validate the performance of transformer-based models (e.g., ART) for multichannel EEG artifact removal while assessing computational demands [107].

Materials and Setup:

• EEG Acquisition System: High-density EEG cap (32+ channels) with synchronous recording
• Reference Signals: EOG and ECG channels for artifact correlation
• Computing Platform: GPU-accelerated workstation (minimum 8GB VRAM)
• Software Framework: Python with PyTorch/TensorFlow and specialized EEG libraries
• Datasets: Open-source EEG datasets with clean and artifact-contaminated segments

Procedure:

• Data Preparation Phase:
  • Segment continuous EEG into 2-second epochs with 50% overlap
  • Apply bandpass filtering (1-40 Hz) and z-score normalization
  • Generate noisy-clean training pairs using independent component analysis

• Model Training Phase:

  • Initialize transformer architecture with multi-head self-attention
  • Configure encoder-decoder layers with skip connections
  • Train using mean squared error loss between denoised and clean signals
  • Optimize with Adam optimizer (learning rate: 0.001, batch size: 32)

• Evaluation Phase:

  • Calculate signal-to-noise ratio improvement and correlation coefficients
  • Measure processing latency per epoch across different hardware configurations
  • Assess memory usage and scaling behavior with increasing channel counts

Implementation Notes: The attention mechanism requires careful dimensionality adjustment to balance temporal resolution and computational load. Model compression techniques may be necessary for practical deployment.

Protocol 2: Real-Time Processing Assessment for Implantable Devices

Objective: To evaluate spike detection and signal compression algorithms for high-density brain-implantable devices under strict power and computational constraints [24].

Materials and Setup:

• Neural Signal Simulator: Synthetic neural data with ground truth spiking activity
• Processing Hardware: Low-power system-on-chip or custom ASIC emulator
• Performance Metrics: Power consumption, processing latency, spike detection accuracy
• Data Transmission: Simulated wireless link with bandwidth constraints

Procedure:

• Signal Conditioning:
  • Apply analog front-end emulation (bandpass filter: 300-5000 Hz)
  • Digitize signals at 20 kS/s with 10-bit resolution
  • Implement common-average referencing for noise reduction

• Spike Detection Phase:

  • Apply amplitude thresholding with adaptive noise floor estimation
  • Implement template matching for overlapping spikes
  • Extract 2-ms waveform snippets centered on detection points

• Compression and Transmission:

  • Apply lossless compression to spike waveforms
  • Implement data packetization with error detection
  • Measure compression ratios and wireless transmission energy costs

• Resource Assessment:

  • Profile computational load across different stages
  • Measure power consumption under various spiking densities
  • Evaluate system lifetime under battery constraints

Implementation Notes: Hardware-software co-design is essential. Fixed-point arithmetic implementation reduces power consumption by 30-50% compared to floating-point with minimal accuracy loss.

Figure 1: Real-Time Processing Workflow for Implantable Neural Interfaces

Signaling Pathways and Processing Workflows

Figure 2: Algorithm Selection Pathway for Different Complexity Requirements

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Resources for Neurotechnology Artifact Removal Research

Resource Category	Specific Solution	Function/Purpose	Implementation Considerations
Reference Datasets	EEGdenoiseNet [43]	Provides standardized noisy-clean EEG pairs for training and validation	Semi-synthetic nature may not capture all real-world variability
	Allen Cell Types Database [115]	Offers real human neuron electrophysiology data for method development	Requires preprocessing for artifact removal specific tasks
Software Libraries	FastICA [10]	Independent component analysis for blind source separation	Performance degrades with low-channel-count wearable EEG
	TensorFlow/PyTorch with EEG extensions [107] [43]	Deep learning framework for complex artifact removal models	Significant computational resources required for training
Hardware Platforms	Custom ASICs [24]	Ultra-low-power signal processing for implantable devices	High development cost, limited flexibility post-fabrication
	GPU-accelerated workstations [107]	Training and inference for complex deep learning models	Enables real-time processing of transformer-based architectures
Evaluation Metrics	Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) [10] [43]	Quantifies improvement in signal quality after processing	Requires clean reference signals, challenging for real data
	Processing Latency [24]	Measures time efficiency for real-time applications	Critical for closed-loop systems and clinical applications
	Power Consumption Profiles [24]	Assesses energy efficiency for portable/wearable devices	Determines battery life and thermal constraints in implants

The assessment of computational efficiency and implementation complexity reveals fundamental trade-offs in neurotechnology artifact removal. Deep learning approaches, particularly transformer-based architectures and hybrid models, demonstrate superior performance for research applications where computational resources are abundant. However, for clinical translation, drug development applications, and implantable devices, methods with lower computational footprint such as optimized ICA variants and hardware-efficient spike detection algorithms present more viable pathways. Future research directions should focus on adaptive algorithms that balance performance with practical constraints, enabling the deployment of robust artifact removal across the spectrum of neurotechnological applications from high-density brain mapping to therapeutic closed-loop systems.

Standardized Testing Protocols and Open-Source Benchmarking Initiatives

The expansion of electroencephalography (EEG) into clinical diagnostics, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), and real-world wearable monitoring has intensified the need for reliable artifact removal techniques. Deep learning (DL) approaches have demonstrated remarkable potential in addressing the nonlinear and complex nature of physiological and non-physiological artifacts in EEG signals. However, the absence of standardized evaluation frameworks and benchmarking datasets hampers objective comparison of methodological advances, reproducibility of results, and clinical translation. This document establishes application notes and protocols for standardized testing and open-source benchmarking to advance the field of neurotechnology signal processing artifact removal, providing researchers with a common foundation for evaluating algorithmic performance.

Performance Benchmarking and Quantitative Comparisons

Standardized benchmarking requires consistent evaluation metrics applied across diverse datasets. The table below summarizes key quantitative metrics essential for comparative analysis of artifact removal algorithms.

Table 1: Key Quantitative Metrics for Artifact Removal Performance Evaluation

Metric Category	Specific Metric	Description and Significance
Temporal Domain Quality	Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)	Measures the power ratio between clean signal and residual noise. Higher values indicate better artifact suppression [43].
	Average Correlation Coefficient (CC)	Quantifies the waveform similarity between processed and clean signals. Values closer to 1.0 indicate superior preservation of neural information [43].
	Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSEt)	Assesses the magnitude of waveform reconstruction error in the time domain. Lower values signify higher fidelity [43].
Spectral Domain Quality	Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSEf)	Evaluates the preservation of spectral content by measuring error in the frequency domain. Lower values are desirable [43].
Classification Accuracy	F1-Score	Harmonic mean of precision and recall, particularly useful for evaluating artifact detection systems where accurate identification is critical [5].
	ROC AUC (Area Under the Curve)	Measures the overall diagnostic ability of a binary classifier across all classification thresholds. Higher values indicate better model performance [5].

Recent studies employing these metrics demonstrate the performance advantages of specialized deep-learning architectures. The CLEnet model, which integrates dual-scale CNNs with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks and an improved attention mechanism, achieved an SNR of 11.498 dB and a correlation coefficient of 0.925 in removing mixed EMG and EOG artifacts, outperforming several mainstream models [43]. Similarly, specialized lightweight Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) optimized for specific artifact classes (eye movement, muscle activity, non-physiological) significantly outperformed traditional rule-based methods, with F1-score improvements ranging from +11.2% to +44.9% [5]. These results underscore the importance of artifact-specific modeling approaches and the value of standardized metrics for objective comparison.

Standardized Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Benchmarking on Semi-Synthetic Datasets

Purpose: To objectively evaluate and compare the performance of artifact removal algorithms using data with known ground truth.

Materials:

• Clean EEG Segments: Use established benchmark datasets such as EEGdenoiseNet, which provides clean EEG samples [43] [116].
• Artifact Signals: Obtain pure artifact recordings (EOG, EMG, ECG) from publicly available repositories or controlled collections [43].
• Computing Environment: Standard workstation with GPU acceleration recommended for deep learning model training and evaluation.

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Linearly mix clean EEG segments (eeg_clean) with artifact signals (artifact) at controlled Signal-to-Noise Ratios (SNRs): eeg_noisy = eeg_clean + γ * artifact, where γ is a scaling factor to achieve the target SNR [43] [116].
• Data Partitioning: Split the semi-synthetic dataset into training, validation, and held-out test sets using standard ratios (e.g., 70/15/15). Ensure no data leakage between splits.
• Model Training: Train the artifact removal model in a supervised manner using the noisy-clean signal pairs. The Mean Squared Error (MSE) between the model's output and the clean ground truth is a commonly used loss function: L = (1/n) * Σ(fθ(y_i) - x_i)² [44].
• Model Evaluation: Apply the trained model to the held-out test set. Calculate the performance metrics listed in Table 1 (SNR, CC, RRMSEt, RRMSEf) by comparing the model's output against the known ground truth (eeg_clean).

Protocol 2: Validation on Real-World Wearable EEG Data

Purpose: To assess the generalizability and practical efficacy of artifact removal algorithms under ecological recording conditions.

Materials:

• Real-World Dataset: Use datasets containing multi-channel EEG recordings from wearable devices with annotations from expert neurophysiologists, such as the Temple University Hospital (TUH) EEG Corpus [5].
• Auxiliary Sensors (Optional): Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) or other motion sensors to provide reference signals for movement artifact identification [9].

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Standardization: Resample all recordings to a uniform sampling rate (e.g., 250 Hz).
  • Montage: Apply a standardized bipolar or average reference montage.
  • Filtering: Implement bandpass (e.g., 1-40 Hz) and notch (50/60 Hz) filters to remove line noise and out-of-band interference [5].
• Expert Annotation: Utilize artifact labels provided by expert neurophysiologists as a benchmark. High inter-annotator agreement (e.g., κ > 0.8) is crucial for reliability [5].
• Algorithm Application: Process the continuous EEG data with the artifact removal algorithm. For detection tasks, segment the data into non-overlapping windows of varying lengths (e.g., 1s, 5s, 20s), as optimal window size is often artifact-specific [5].
• Performance Assessment:
  • For artifact detection, calculate classification metrics (F1-Score, Accuracy, ROC AUC) against expert annotations.
  • For artifact removal, where a clean ground truth is unavailable, performance can be assessed indirectly through the improvement in downstream task performance (e.g., classification accuracy of brain states) [116].

Workflow Visualization for Standardized Benchmarking

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and decision points involved in a comprehensive benchmarking pipeline for artifact removal algorithms, integrating both semi-synthetic and real-world validation paths.

Figure 1: A unified workflow for standardized benchmarking of artifact removal algorithms, showing parallel paths for semi-synthetic and real-world data validation.

Successful experimentation in EEG artifact removal relies on a suite of open-source datasets, software tools, and model architectures. The following table details key resources that constitute the essential "research reagent solutions" for this field.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Resources for EEG Artifact Removal Research

Resource Category	Specific Resource	Function and Application
Benchmark Datasets	EEGdenoiseNet [43] [116]	A semi-synthetic benchmark dataset containing clean EEG, EMG, and EOG signals. Enables controlled algorithm training and testing with known ground truth.
	Temple University Hospital (TUH) EEG Corpus [5]	A large clinical EEG dataset with expert-annotated artifact labels. Ideal for validating algorithms on real-world, complex artifact patterns.
Model Architectures	CLEnet (CNN-LSTM-EMA) [43]	A dual-branch network that extracts morphological and temporal features. Effective for removing various artifact types from multi-channel EEG.
	Specialized Lightweight CNNs [5]	A system of distinct CNN models, each optimized for a specific artifact class (eye, muscle, non-physiological). Enables high-accuracy detection with minimal computational footprint.
	AT-AT (Autoencoder-Targeted Adversarial Transformer) [116]	A hybrid model that uses a lightweight autoencoder to guide a transformer, achieving high performance with a reduced model size.
Software & Frameworks	Deep Learning Libraries (TensorFlow, PyTorch)	Provide the foundation for building, training, and evaluating complex deep learning models for end-to-end artifact removal.
	Evaluation Metrics Suite (e.g., SNR, CC, RRMSE) [43] [44]	Standardized code libraries for calculating performance metrics ensure consistent and comparable reporting of results across different studies.

Signaling Pathway for a Hybrid Deep Learning Architecture

The CLEnet model presents a sophisticated, hybrid architecture for effective artifact separation. The following diagram maps its internal "signaling pathway," illustrating the flow of information and the function of each core component.

Figure 2: The CLEnet architecture signaling pathway, showing the flow from noisy input to clean EEG reconstruction through feature extraction and fusion.

Interpretability and Transparency in Deep Learning-Based Approaches

The adoption of deep learning in high-stakes fields like neurotechnology and drug discovery has created a pressing need for models that are not only accurate but also interpretable and transparent. In the context of neurotechnology signal processing, particularly for artifact removal from electrophysiological data like electroencephalogram (EEG), this transparency is crucial for validating model decisions, ensuring reliability, and building trust among researchers and clinicians [117] [33]. While complex deep learning models often achieve superior performance, they are frequently treated as "black boxes," whose internal decision-making processes are obscure [118] [117]. This document outlines application notes and experimental protocols for developing and evaluating interpretable and transparent deep learning approaches, with a specific focus on artifact removal in neurotechnology.

Core Concepts and Definitions

Key Definitions

• Interpretability: The ability to understand and explain how a machine learning model arrives at a specific prediction or decision. It can be examined on two scales:
  • Local Interpretability: Explains individual predictions (e.g., why a specific segment of EEG was classified as containing a muscle artifact) [118].
  • Global Interpretability: Provides an overall understanding of the model's behavior across the entire dataset [118] [117].
• Transparency: The ability to examine a model's internal structures and mechanisms directly. Transparent models, such as linear regression or decision trees, are inherently understandable without requiring external explanation tools [118].
• Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A set of processes and methods that allows human users to comprehend and trust the results and outputs created by machine learning algorithms [118] [119]. XAI aims to make clear what has been done, what is being done, and what will be done next by the model [118].

The Interpretability-Performance Trade-off

A common challenge in the field is the trade-off between model performance and interpretability. Highly complex models like deep neural networks often deliver greater accuracy but are less interpretable. Conversely, simpler, inherently transparent models (e.g., decision trees) may sacrifice some predictive power [118]. The choice of approach depends on the application's criticality, where high-stakes domains like medical diagnosis often prioritize interpretability [117] [120].

Table 1: Categorization of Explainable AI (XAI) Techniques

Categorization Criteria	Categories	Description	Common Examples
Model Relationship	Model-Agnostic	Methods that can be applied to any ML model, regardless of its internal structure [117].	LIME [118], SHAP [118], Counterfactual Explanations [119]
	Model-Specific	Methods designed to explain specific model architectures [117].	Feature Importance in Random Forests [118], Prototype-based explanations in ProtoPNets [120]
Scope of Explanation	Local	Explains the reasoning for a single instance prediction [118] [117].	LIME [118], SHAP (local force plots) [118]
	Global	Explains the overall model behavior and logic [118] [117].	Global Feature Importance [118], Model Distillation [117]
Timing of Explanation	Intrinsic	Models that are inherently interpretable by design [117].	Linear Models, Decision Trees, Shallow-ProtoPNet [120]
	Post-hoc	Explanations generated after the model has made a prediction [117] [120].	SHAP, LIME, Saliency Maps [118]
Explanation Modality	Visual	Uses charts, heatmaps, or graphs to present explanations [117].	SHAP summary plots [118], Saliency Maps [117]
	Textual	Generates natural language descriptions of the model's reasoning [117].	--
	Example-based	Uses representative examples or prototypes to explain model logic [117].	Prototypical Part Networks (ProtoPNets) [120]

Application in Neurotechnology: Artifact Removal in EEG

The Challenge of EEG Artifacts

Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals are invariably contaminated by artifacts—unwanted noise originating from both external and internal physiological sources [3]. These artifacts can severely bias the analysis and interpretation of neural data. Key artifact types include:

• Ocular Artifacts: Caused by eye movements and blinks, characterized by high amplitude and propagation over the scalp [3].
• Muscle Artifacts: Result from muscle activity (e.g., jaw clenching, swallowing), possessing a broad frequency spectrum that overlaps with neural signals, making them particularly challenging to remove [3].
• Cardiac Artifacts: Arise from heart activity, such as pulse or electrocardiogram (ECG) interference [3].

Deep learning models offer advanced solutions for denoising these signals, but their black-box nature poses risks. Without interpretability, researchers cannot verify if the model is removing noise based on valid physiological principles or inadvertently discarding relevant neural information [33].

Interpretable Deep Learning for EEG Denoising

Recent research explores deep learning and state space models for artifact removal in Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) and other EEG applications [33]. The move towards interpretable deep learning (Interpretable DL) in this domain aims to open these black boxes, ensuring that the denoising process is based on sound, understandable reasoning, which is critical for both scientific validation and clinical adoption [117] [33].

Experimental Protocols for Interpretable Artifact Removal

Protocol: Benchmarking with SHAP and LIME for Model Explanations

This protocol details the use of post-hoc explanation methods to interpret a deep learning model trained for classifying or removing artifacts in EEG signals.

1. Objective: To explain the predictions of a pre-trained artifact detection model using SHAP and LIME, identifying which features (e.g., frequency bands, channel voltages) most influence the model's decisions.

2. Materials and Datasets:

• A pre-trained deep learning model for EEG artifact classification (e.g., a CNN or RNN).
• A curated EEG dataset with artifacts labeled by experts (e.g., containing segments with ocular, muscle, and cardiac artifacts).
• Computing environment with Python and necessary libraries: shap, lime, xgboost, scikit-learn [118].

3. Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Step 1: Data Preparation. Split the EEG dataset into training and test sets. Preprocess the data (e.g., bandpass filtering, normalization) [3].
• Step 2: Model Training. Train an artifact classification model (e.g., XGBoost, Random Forest, or a deep neural network) on the training set. The model's task is to predict whether a given EEG epoch contains a specific type of artifact [118].
• Step 3: SHAP Explanation.
  • Initialize a SHAP explainer: explainer = shap.Explainer(model) [118].
  • Calculate SHAP values for a set of test instances: shap_values = explainer(X_test).
  • Visualize global feature importance using shap.summary_plot(shap_values, X_test). This plot reveals the features with the greatest average impact on model output across the entire dataset [118].
• Step 4: LIME Explanation.
  • Initialize a LIME tabular explainer: explainer = lime.lime_tabular.LimeTabularExplainer(X_train.values, feature_names=feature_names, mode='classification') [118].
  • Select a specific test instance to explain locally.
  • Generate an explanation: exp = explainer.explain_instance(instance, model.predict_proba, num_features=6).
  • Display the explanation showing which features contributed to the classification of that specific instance as an artifact [118].

4. Outputs and Analysis:

• SHAP Summary Plot: Identifies global important features like high-frequency power for muscle artifacts or frontal channel amplitude for ocular artifacts.
• LIME Local Plot: Explains individual cases, e.g., why a particular epoch was flagged as containing a blink.
• Validation: Correlate explanation results with known physiological principles of artifacts to validate the model's reasoning.

Protocol: Developing an Intrinsically Interpretable Model with Prototype Layers

This protocol outlines the development of a self-explanatory model using prototype-based learning, inspired by architectures like ProtoPNet and its derivatives, adapted for 1D EEG signals.

1. Objective: To build and train a fully transparent deep learning model for artifact classification that uses learned prototypical examples of clean signals and artifacts to justify its predictions.

2. Materials and Datasets:

• EEG dataset with labeled artifacts.
• Python, PyTorch or TensorFlow, and the interpret library [118] [120].

3. Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Step 1: Architecture Design.
  • Design a shallow network. For image-like EEG representations (e.g., spectrograms), a model like Shallow-ProtoPNet can be used, which consists of only a prototype layer and a fully connected layer [120].
  • For 1D time-series, replace the 2D convolutional prototype layer with a 1D equivalent.
  • The prototype layer contains a set of learnable prototypical patterns of artifact and brain signal segments.
• Step 2: Training.
  • Phase 1: Latent Space Learning. Train the entire network to minimize classification loss (e.g., cross-entropy) [120].
  • Phase 2: Prototype Projection. Push each prototype to be as close as possible to the latent patch of a training input from its class [120].
  • Phase 3: Final Optimization. Fine-tune the last layer to connect prototype similarity scores to class logits [120].
• Step 3: Explanation Generation.
  • For a new input, the model finds the most similar prototypes in the latent space.
  • The prediction is explained by showing the prototypical artifact patterns from the training set that were most similar to the input.

4. Outputs and Analysis:

• A model that provides a transparent decision process: "This input EEG epoch contains an artifact because it is similar to these known prototypical artifact patterns."
• Researchers can visually (for spectrograms) or graphically (for time-series) inspect the learned prototypes to verify they correspond to physiologically plausible artifacts.

Table 2: Quantitative Comparison of Interpretability Techniques for a Hypothetical EEG Artifact Classification Task

Interpretability Method	Model Type	Reported Accuracy (Example)	Scope of Explanation	Key Advantage
SHAP	Post-hoc, Agnostic	~78% (XGBoost on Diabetes data) [118]	Local & Global	Solid theoretical foundation from game theory; provides consistent explanations [118]
LIME	Post-hoc, Agnostic	--	Local	Fast and intuitive for explaining single predictions [118]
Feature Importance	Model-Specific (e.g., Random Forest)	--	Global	Simple and quick to compute for tree-based models [118]
Shallow-ProtoPNet	Intrinsically Interpretable	Comparable to other interpretable models on X-ray images [120]	Local & Global	Fully transparent architecture; does not rely on a black-box backbone [120]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Software Tools and Libraries for Interpretable DL Research

Tool / Library	Primary Function	Application in Neurotechnology Research
SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations)	Quantifies the contribution of each input feature to a model's prediction for any algorithm [118].	Explaining which EEG features (e.g., specific frequency bands or channels) a deep learning model uses to detect an artifact.
LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations)	Approximates a complex model locally with an interpretable one (e.g., linear model) to explain individual predictions [118].	Providing a "reason" for why a specific 5-second EEG epoch was classified as containing a muscle artifact.
Interpret Library	Offers a range of intrinsic interpretable models, such as Explainable Boosting Machines (EBMs) [118].	Building globally interpretable models for artifact classification where every feature interaction is clear.
ProtoPNet & Variants	Provides a deep learning architecture that uses prototype comparisons for case-based reasoning [120].	Building a self-explaining artifact detector that compares input EEG segments to learned prototypical examples of clean and artifactual signals.

The integration of interpretability and transparency is not merely a technical enhancement but a fundamental requirement for the responsible advancement of deep learning in neurotechnology. As research in artifact removal and neural signal processing evolves, the adoption of XAI techniques—ranging from post-hoc explanation tools like SHAP and LIME to intrinsically interpretable architectures like Shallow-ProtoPNet—will be pivotal. These approaches enable researchers and drug development professionals to validate models, build trust, and ensure that deep learning systems are making decisions based on scientifically sound and understandable reasoning. The future of reliable neurotechnology hinges on models that are not only powerful but also transparent and interpretable.

Conclusion

The field of neural signal artifact removal has evolved dramatically from basic filtering techniques to sophisticated AI-driven approaches, with convolutional attention networks, hybrid optimization, and adaptive separation methods representing the current state-of-the-art. The integration of multiple methodologies—combining hardware innovations, signal processing, and machine learning—delivers superior performance compared to any single approach. Future directions include real-time artifact removal for closed-loop neuroprosthetics, multimodal integration across neuroimaging techniques, improved generalization across diverse populations, and translation to clinical practice. As neurotechnology continues advancing toward more sensitive recordings and complex applications, robust artifact removal remains fundamental to extracting meaningful neural information, with profound implications for brain-computer interfaces, neurological disorder diagnosis, and our fundamental understanding of brain function. The emergence of publicly available benchmarks, open-source algorithms, and standardized validation protocols will accelerate innovation in this critical domain.

References

• 1. EEG Artifacts: Types, Detection, and Removal Techniques ... [https://www.bitbrain.com/blog/eeg-artifacts]
• 2. A Systematic Review of Techniques for Artifact Detection ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/18/5770]
• 3. Removal of Artifacts from EEG Signals: A Review - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6427454/]
• 4. Artifact Reduction in Simultaneous EEG-fMRI: A Systematic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.622719/full]
• 5. A Deep Lightweight Convolutional Neural Network for ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.10.28.25338681v1.full]
• 6. NeuroClean: A Generalized Machine-Learning Approach ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.01951v1]
• 7. EEG Blink Artifacts Can Identify Read Music in Listening ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.13807v1]
• 8. Removing Artifacts From EEG Data Using Independent ... - TMSi [https://www.tmsi.artinis.com/blog/removing-eeg-artifacts-with-independent-component-analysis-ica]
• 9. A Systematic Review of Techniques for Artifact Detection ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12473706/]
• 10. Automatic Removal of Physiological Artifacts in OPM-MEG [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12564105/]
• 11. AnEEG: leveraging deep learning for effective artifact ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-75091-z]
• 12. Common non-physiological (external) EEG artifacts - TMSi [https://www.tmsi.artinis.com/blog/common-non-physiological-external-eeg-artifacts]
• 13. Signal processing methods for reducing artifacts in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5818316/]
• 14. Efficient Artifacts Removal for Adaptive Deep Brain ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.11459v1]
• 15. How Volume Conduction Affects Your EEG Data [https://mentalab.com/volume-conduction/]
• 16. Artifact propagation in subdural cortical electrostimulation [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2022.1021097/full]
• 17. How to assess the accuracy of volume conduction models? ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10894995/]
• 18. ERAASR: An algorithm for removing electrical stimulation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5833982/]
• 19. Trends and Limitations in Transformer-Based BCI Research [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/20/11150]
• 20. Quantitatively validating the efficacy of artifact suppression ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6688933/]
• 21. PARRM: Period-based Artifact Reconstruction and Removal ... [https://carney.brown.edu/research-projects/parrm-period-based-artifact-reconstruction-and-removal-method]
• 22. Performance Improvement with Reduced Number of Channels ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11723053/]
• 23. Advances in large-scale electrophysiology with high-density ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12394932/]
• 24. Real-time, neural signal processing for high-density brain ... [https://bioelecmed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42234-025-00177-6]
• 25. Bridging circuit modeling and signal analysis to understand ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59391-0]
• 26. Protocol for recording neural activity evoked by electrical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11077271/]
• 27. Anti-artifacts techniques for neural recording front-ends in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2024.1393206/full]
• 28. Study on Shielding Effectiveness of High Transmittance ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7080/11/6/175]
• 29. Filter (signal processing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_(signal_processing)]
• 30. Digital Filtering and Signal Decomposition: A Priori and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10108405/]
• 31. Patterns identification using blind source separation with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020025524013240]
• 32. Single-channel EOG artifact removal using fixed frequency ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-10276-8]
• 33. A deep learning approach to artifact removal in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030645222500990X]
• 34. EEG artifact removal with Blind Source Separation [https://sccn.ucsd.edu/~jung/Site/EEG_artifact_removal.html]
• 35. ICA-based artefact removal and accelerated fMRI ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811914001815]
• 36. Improved EOG Artifact Removal Using Wavelet Enhanced ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6956025/]
• 37. CW_ICA: an efficient dimensionality determination method ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49355-z]
• 38. Quantifying Data Requirements for EEG Independent ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10156]
• 39. A Comparison of Approaches for Motion Artifact Removal from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12349273/]
• 40. Artifact removal in the context of group ICA - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5784424/]
• 41. ICA-based artifact removal diminishes scan site differences ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2015.00395/full]
• 42. Measuring the accuracy of ICA-based artifact removal from ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X23019629]
• 43. A novel EEG artifact removal algorithm based on an ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-98653-1]
• 44. A comprehensive review of deep learning models for ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-025-07808-2]
• 45. Editorial: Machine learning and signal processing for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroergonomics/articles/10.3389/fnrgo.2023.1305482/full]
• 46. Artifact removal by template subtraction enables recordings ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-56047-9]
• 47. A novel subject-wise dictionary learning approach using ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47420-1]
• 48. A Sparse Representation and Dictionary Learning ... [https://ecejournals.in/index.php/NJSIP/article/view/317]
• 49. LRR‐UNet: A Deep Unfolding Network With Low‐Rank ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12559029/]
• 50. EEGReXferNet: A Lightweight Gen-AI Framework for EEG ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.02848v1]
• 51. A hybrid method for muscle artifact removal from EEG signals [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016502702100039X]
• 52. A Hybrid CNN-LSTM Approach for Muscle Artifact Removal ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/9/4953]
• 53. A Survey on Advancements in Neural Signal Processing ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.00580v2]
• 54. Recent applications of EEG-based brain-computer-interface in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11931852/]
• 55. Implementing intraoperative high‐density electrocorticography ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12097464/]
• 56. Artifact removal in electrocorticography devices with ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40839508/]
• 57. Real-time, neural signal processing for high-density brain ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12275325/]
• 58. Adaptive Artifact Removal From Intracortical Channels for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.00350/full]
• 59. Neural Recording Power Optimization Through Machine ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.22924v1]
• 60. Mind and machine: The state of neurotech in 2025 [https://www.insights.onegiantleap.com/blogs/mind-and-machine-the-state-of-neurotech-in-2025/]
• 61. Real-time data processing: Benefits, challenges, and best ... [https://www.instaclustr.com/education/real-time-streaming/real-time-data-processing-benefits-challenges-and-best-practices/]
• 62. Uncovering biomarkers during therapeutic neuromodulation with... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34532716/]
• 63. Neuromorphic algorithms for brain implants: a review [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2025.1570104/full]
• 64. Detection and Artifact from In-Vivo Neural Removal | PPTX Signals [https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/artifact-detection-and-removal-from-invivo-neural-signals/44097053]
• 65. Optimization of Real-Time EEG Artifact Removal and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computational-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fncom.2019.00080/full]
• 66. Reducing artifacts during human intracranial electrical ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41173381/]
• 67. Advancing Brain-Computer Interface Closed-Loop Systems for ... [https://biomedeng.jmir.org/2025/1/e72218]
• 68. Two methodologies for brain signal analysis derived from ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/systems-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2025.1570231/full]
• 69. A network correspondence toolbox for quantitative ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58176-9]
• 70. A deep learning approach to artifact removal in ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41101623/]
• 71. Neurotech Devices Market Size & Forecast 2025-2035 [https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/neurotech-devices-market]
• 72. Contrast-based artifact removal enables microstate ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41196780/]
• 73. Hierarchical attention enhanced deep learning achieves ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-17922-1]
• 74. Evolution of Harris Hawks Optimization: Insights ... [https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-96-7277-6_16]
• 75. Multi-objective Harris Hawks optimization algorithm for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666307424000287]
• 76. Neuromorphic-based metaheuristics: A new generation of ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.16362v1]
• 77. Enhanced secretary bird optimization algorithm with multi ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-04469-4]
• 78. Combination of spatial and temporal de-noising and artifact ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2025.1576954/full]
• 79. Multi-objective optimization via evolutionary algorithm ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811923004822]
• 80. Advanced Signal Processing and Machine/Deep Learning Approaches on a Preprocessing Block for EEG Artifact Removal: A Comprehensive Review | Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00034-024-02936-3]
• 81. Personalized EEG-guided brain stimulation targeting in major ... [https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-025-07171-x]
• 82. A novel EEG artifact removal algorithm based on an advanced ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12134218/]
• 83. Evaluation of entropy features and classifier performance ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2025.1651501/full]
• 84. An exploratory framework for EEG-based monitoring of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-05420-3]
• 85. Optimal Multichannel Artifact Prediction and Removal for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7379342/]
• 86. The Limitations of PSNR and Why Perceptual Metrics Are ... [https://eureka.patsnap.com/article/the-limitations-of-psnr-and-why-perceptual-metrics-are-gaining-traction]
• 87. Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio as an Image Quality Metric [https://www.ni.com/en/shop/data-acquisition-and-control/add-ons-for-data-acquisition-and-control/what-is-vision-development-module/peak-signal-to-noise-ratio-as-an-image-quality-metric.html?srsltid=AfmBOoo8O2-JSkglTU1NHVASx0K2p3oY-BllO9z86HCW5XEVO5kutlm8]
• 88. Peak signal-to-noise ratio - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_signal-to-noise_ratio]
• 89. PSNR - Compute peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) between images - Simulink [https://www.mathworks.com/help/vision/ref/psnr.html]
• 90. Root-Mean-Squared Error - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/root-mean-squared-error]
• 91. Root mean square deviation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square_deviation]
• 92. Signal-to-noise ratio improvement in multiple electrode ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165027001005167]
• 93. Enhancement of Signal-to-Noise Ratio and Phase Locking for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3677217/]
• 94. Synthetic neuronal datasets for benchmarking directed ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4435472/]
• 95. InterpBench: Semi-Synthetic Transformers for Evaluating ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.14494]
• 96. Recommendations for the creation of benchmark datasets for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11473745/]
• 97. The neurobench framework for benchmarking ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56739-4]
• 98. Deep Learning vs. Traditional Machine Learning: Which is ... [https://www.alliancetek.com/blog/post/2025/03/11/deep-learning-vs-traditional-ml.aspx]
• 99. AI vs. Machine Learning vs. Deep Learning vs. Neural ... [https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-vs-machine-learning-vs-deep-learning-vs-neural-networks]
• 100. Review of deep learning models with Spiking Neural ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2025.1623497/full]
• 101. ML vs Deep Learning: Understanding Excellent AI's Core ... [https://hblabgroup.com/ml-vs-deep-learning/]
• 102. Machine Learning vs. Neural Networks: Differences & ... [https://www.carmatec.com/blog/machine-learning-vs-neural-networks-key-differences-and-future-trends/]
• 103. Forecasting epileptic seizures with wearable devices: A hybrid ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40411751/]
• 104. Improving epilepsy monitoring using long-term, in-home-bi- ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2025.1609838/full]
• 105. First-of-its-kind technology helps man with ALS 'speak' in ... [https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/first-of-its-kind-technology-helps-man-with-als-speak-in-real-time/2025/06]
• 106. Bridging Neurobiology and Artificial Intelligence: A Narrative ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12467634/]
• 107. Augmenting brain-computer interfaces with ART: An artifact ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40057290/]
• 108. Recent applications of EEG-based brain-computer-interface in ... [https://mmrjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40779-025-00598-z]
• 109. Hybrid ICA—Regression: Automatic Identification and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00193/full]
• 110. EEG is better when cleaning effectively targets artifacts [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41092567/]
• 111. Cross-wavelet assisted convolution neural network ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1746809420302895]
• 112. ACXNet hybrid deep learning model for cross task mental ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-19144-x]
• 113. Hybrid EEG Feature Learning Method for Cross-Session ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12384435/]
• 114. Neurotechnology & Brain-Computer Interfaces in 2025 [https://www.ambula.io/neurotechnology-brain-computer-interfaces-in-2025/]
• 115. Using Real Human Neuron Data Sets to Build Student ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10768818/]
• 116. Removing neural signal artifacts with autoencoder-targeted ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2502.05332v2]
• 117. Advancements in deep learning and explainable artificial ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0952197625014150]
• 118. Interpretability and Transparency of Machine Learning ... [https://medium.com/@fertorresfs/interpretability-and-transparency-of-machine-learning-models-b1f169ae582d]
• 119. a tutorial on transparency and interpretability in machine ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405896324013582]
• 120. The shallowest transparent and interpretable deep neural ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-92945-2]