Untangling the Signal: Overcoming Frequency Overlap in Neural Data for Advanced Biomedical Research

Abstract

This article addresses the critical challenge of frequency overlap between neural signals and biological artifacts, a fundamental problem that confounds data interpretation in neuroscience and drug development. We explore the spectral characteristics of common artifacts—such as ocular, muscular, and cardiac interference—that inhabit the same frequency bands as key neural oscillations. The scope spans from foundational concepts explaining why traditional filtering fails, to advanced methodological solutions including deep learning and targeted artifact reduction. We also provide a comparative analysis of validation metrics and troubleshooting frameworks to optimize signal processing pipelines, ultimately empowering researchers to enhance the reliability of their neural data for clinical and research applications.

The Core Conflict: Why Frequency Overlap Challenges Neural Signal Interpretation

A fundamental challenge in neurophysiological signal analysis is the spectral overlap between neural signals of interest and non-neural physiological artifacts. This overlap occurs when artifacts generated by eye movements, muscle activity, and other biological processes share nearly identical frequency bands with crucial brain rhythms, making their separation exceptionally difficult [1] [2]. The intrinsic low amplitude of neural signals, typically measured in microvolts for EEG, further exacerbates this problem, as artifacts often exhibit amplitudes an order of magnitude larger, drastically reducing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and obscuring genuine brain activity [3] [2]. This contamination compromises data integrity and can lead to clinical misdiagnosis, particularly when artifacts mimic epileptiform abnormalities or sleep rhythms [2]. Understanding and addressing this spectral convergence is therefore paramount for accurate interpretation of neural data in both research and clinical settings.

Quantitative Analysis of Spectral Overlap

The following table systematically categorizes common physiological artifacts and their spectral characteristics relative to standard neural oscillations, highlighting the specific frequency bands where overlap occurs.

Table 1: Spectral Overlap Between Neural Signals and Physiological Artifacts

Signal/Artifact Type	Frequency Range	Primary Overlapping Neural Rhythms	Key Characteristics & Impact
Ocular Artifacts (EOG) [1] [2]	3–15 Hz	Delta (0.5–4 Hz), Theta (4–8 Hz)	High-amplitude (100–200 µV) deflections; obscures low-frequency cognitive processes and evoked potentials.
Muscle Artifacts (EMG) [2]	20–300 Hz	Beta (13–30 Hz), Gamma (>30 Hz)	Broadband high-frequency noise; masks cognitive and motor activity signals.
Sleep-Related Waveforms [3]	Varies (e.g., Delta)	Delta, Theta	Vertex waves and K-complexes can be confused with or obscured by other low-frequency artifacts.
Respiration Artifact [2]	~0.1–0.3 Hz	Delta (0.5–4 Hz)	Slow baseline drifts; impairs sleep studies and low-frequency cognitive assessments.
Perspiration Artifact [2]	<1 Hz	Delta (0.5–4 Hz)	Slow potential shifts due to changing electrode impedance; contaminates delta and theta bands.

Quantitative studies confirm the significant impact of this overlap. Mutual information and SNR analyses reveal that while MEG generally offers a higher total information content, both EEG and MEG are susceptible to these confounding signals. Notably, artifacts like vertex waves and K-complexes can carry significantly higher total information in MEG, whereas EEG is more sensitive to high-amplitude artifacts such as swallowing and muscle activity [3].

Methodological Approaches for Artifact Identification and Removal

Traditional and Classical Methods

Early approaches to artifact removal relied on well-established signal processing techniques, which are often used as benchmarks for newer methods.

• Regression-Based Methods: These are among the simplest techniques, operating under the linear assumption that the recorded signal is a sum of the true EEG and the artifact [1]. The process involves using a reference signal, such as an electrooculography (EOG) channel, to estimate the artifact's contribution to each EEG channel and subtract it. The time-domain regression method, for instance, involves filtering both the EEG and EOG signals, estimating a subject-specific weighting coefficient for each channel, and subtracting the scaled EOG artifact [1].
• Blind Source Separation (BSS) & Independent Component Analysis (ICA): ICA is a powerful BSS technique that decomposes multi-channel EEG data into statistically independent components [1] [2]. The underlying principle is that neural and artifactual sources are anatomically and physiologically distinct and thus get mixed differently across electrodes. Experts can then identify and remove components corresponding to blinks, eye movements, or muscle activity before reconstructing the clean EEG signal. This method is particularly effective for high-density EEG systems (e.g., >40 channels) [1].
• Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR): ASR is an advanced, automated method that operates by statistically identifying and reconstructing portions of the EEG data contaminated by artifacts. It is especially useful for real-time applications and wearable EEG systems, as it can handle non-stationary noise bursts caused by gross motor movements [1].

Advanced Deep Learning and Generative Models

Modern research has pivoted towards using deep learning models to tackle the complex, non-linear nature of artifact contamination.

• Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs): GANs have shown remarkable success in generating artifact-free EEG signals. The architecture consists of a generator, which attempts to produce clean EEG from noisy input, and a discriminator, which learns to distinguish the generated signal from ground-truth clean data [4]. This adversarial training process guides the generator to create physiologically accurate, denoised outputs. Variants like Wasserstein GAN with Gradient Penalty (WGAN-GP) have demonstrated superior training stability and signal quality [5].
• Hybrid Deep Learning Models: Researchers are developing sophisticated hybrid models that combine the strengths of different architectures. For example, the AnEEG model integrates Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks with a GAN to capture the temporal dependencies inherent in EEG data [4]. Other models, like GCTNet, use a GAN-guided parallel CNN alongside a transformer network to capture both global and local temporal features, reportedly reducing error and improving SNR compared to older methods [4].
• State Space Models (SSMs): For specific challenges like artifacts induced by Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES), multi-modular networks based on SSMs have been shown to excel, particularly for removing complex artifacts from tACS and tRNS protocols [6].

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Artifact Removal

Solution / Algorithm	Primary Function	Key Advantage
Independent Component Analysis (ICA) [1] [2]	Blind source separation of EEG signals into independent components.	Effective for isolating and removing stereotypical artifacts (e.g., blinks) from high-channel data without signal loss.
Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR) [1]	Statistical detection and reconstruction of artifact-contaminated data segments.	Suitable for real-time application and mobile EEG; robust against large, non-stationary artifacts.
Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) [4] [5]	Generative model that learns to produce artifact-free EEG signals.	Capable of modeling complex, non-linear artifact properties; can synthesize clean data.
Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Network [4]	Type of recurrent neural network for processing sequential data.	Models temporal dynamics and long-range dependencies in EEG time series.
State Space Models (SSMs) [6]	Models dynamical systems for time-series denoising.	Particularly effective for removing structured, periodic noise like tACS artifacts.

Visualizing the Problem and Solutions

The following diagrams illustrate the core problem of spectral overlap and the workflow of a modern deep-learning solution.

Spectral Overlap Visualization

Artifact Removal Workflow

The spectral overlap between neural signals and physiological artifacts remains a critical obstacle in electrophysiology. While classical methods like regression and ICA provide foundational solutions, the future lies in advanced, data-driven approaches. Deep learning models, particularly GANs and hybrid architectures, demonstrate a superior capacity to model the complex, non-linear relationships within the signal mixture, enabling more precise and effective artifact removal. As these technologies evolve, they will unlock more robust analysis of neural dynamics, directly enhancing the accuracy of clinical diagnostics and the efficacy of therapeutic interventions in neurology and drug development.

Neural oscillations, the rhythmic electrical activity generated by the brain, form a fundamental mechanism for coordinating large-scale neural communication and are critical for cognitive functions ranging from sensory processing to memory. A primary challenge in their accurate identification and quantification is the significant spectral overlap between authentic brain rhythms and non-cerebral artifacts, particularly those originating from muscular activity. This overlap can confound analysis, leading to misinterpretations in both basic neuroscience and clinical drug development. This technical guide details the spectral and spatial profiles of key oscillations, provides methodologies for their robust characterization amid contaminating signals, and frames these concepts within the essential context of artifact discrimination.

Foundational Spectral Properties of Neural Oscillations

The brain's oscillatory activity is not random; it is organized into distinct frequency bands that exhibit characteristic spatial distributions and functional correlates. Understanding these profiles is the first step in differentiating them from artifacts. The following table summarizes the core spectral and functional attributes of the key neural rhythms.

Table 1: Spectral Profiles and Functional Correlates of Key Neural Oscillations

Rhythm	Frequency Range (Hz)	Prominent Cortical Distribution	Primary Functional Correlates
Delta	0.5 – 4 [7] [8]	Medial fronto-temporal regions [9]	Deep sleep, unconscious states (e.g., UWS), pathological conditions [10] [9]
Theta	4 – 8 [7] [8]	Medial fronto-temporal regions; Hippocampus [7] [9]	Spatial navigation, memory consolidation, focused attention [7]
Alpha	8 – 13 [10] [8]	Posterior regions (e.g., occipital, precuneus) [9]	Idle state, relaxed wakefulness with eyes closed, sensory gating [10] [8]
Beta	13 – 32 [8]	Lateral prefrontal cortex; Somatomotor cortex [9]	Active motor processing, sustained attention, cognitive control [9]

The brain's spatial organization of these natural frequencies follows a structured gradient. Research using magnetoencephalography (MEG) has confirmed a medial-to-lateral and a posterior-to-anterior gradient of increasing frequency [9]. Slow rhythms like delta and theta are characteristic of medial fronto-temporal areas, while posterior regions are dominated by the alpha rhythm. In contrast, the lateral prefrontal cortex is distinguished by high-beta oscillations [9].

The Critical Challenge of Frequency Overlap with Artifacts

A principal technical hurdle in analyzing these rhythms is that their spectral bandwidths entirely overlap with common biological artifacts, most notably electromyographic (EMG) activity from muscles.

The Muscle Artifact Problem

The spectral bandwidth of muscle activity is broad, typically ranging from ~20–300 Hz [11]. This creates direct interference with neural signals:

• High-Frequency Contamination: Muscle activity from head and neck muscles (e.g., frontalis, masseter) has peak frequencies in the 30-100 Hz range, directly encroaching on the beta and gamma bands [11].
• Low-Frequency Contamination: The lower band-limit of muscle activity can extend down to approximately 15 Hz, leading to potential overlap with the upper alpha and lower beta bands [11].
• Amplitude Disparity: The amplitude of muscle artifacts can be several orders of magnitude larger than genuine high-frequency neural activity, making tiny neural oscillations particularly vulnerable to being obscured [11].

Spectral vs. Rhythmicity-Based Dissociation

Traditional analysis relies heavily on power spectral density (PSD), which quantifies signal amplitude but not the stability or "oscillatoriness" of the rhythm. A peak in the PSD above the aperiodic (1/f) component is often taken as evidence of an oscillation [8]. However, power and rhythmicity are dissociable; a signal can have high power in a frequency band without being strongly rhythmic, and vice-versa [8]. This is a critical distinction when discriminating brain activity from artifacts, as artifacts may produce high power but lack stable phase dynamics.

The phase-autocorrelation function (pACF) has been introduced as a method to directly quantify rhythmicity in an amplitude-independent manner [8]. The pACF measures the predictability of a future phase as a function of time lag, yielding a direct measurement of temporal stability. Studies using pACF have shown that significant rhythmicity is often present in narrow spectral peaks (e.g., 2-3 Hz wide), whereas the PSD can show elevated power across a much wider and potentially artifactual frequency range [8].

Table 2: Key Methodologies for Discriminating Neural Oscillations from Artifacts

Method	Underlying Principle	Advantages	Limitations
Power Spectral Density (PSD) & FOOOF	Separates periodic spectral peaks from aperiodic 1/f background [10] [8]	Gold standard for initial identification; FOOOF parameterization enables quantitative comparison [10]	Confounds amplitude with rhythmicity; susceptible to contamination from broadband artifacts [8]
Phase-Autocorrelation Function (pACF)	Quantifies phase stability over time, independent of signal amplitude [8]	Directly measures "oscillatoriness"; reveals narrowband rhythmicity invisible to PSD [8]	Newer method with less established normative benchmarks; requires sufficient data length
Stationary Wavelet Transform (SWT)	Decomposes signal into frequency bands; artifacts detected and removed via thresholding [12]	Effective for removing localized, transient artifacts without relying on other channels [12]	Performance depends on selected frequency bands and threshold parameters [12]
Machine Learning (LSTM Networks)	Learns normal signal dynamics to predict and replace artifactual segments [13]	Channel-independent; recreates realistic signal to maintain data continuity [13]	Requires high-quality training data; computationally intensive

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Oscillation Profiling

Protocol 1: Resting-State EEG Acquisition and Spectral Parameterization

This protocol is adapted from studies on disorders of consciousness, where spectral profiling is crucial for diagnosis [10].

• 1. Participant Preparation & Recording: Acquire at least 10 minutes of resting-state EEG during wakefulness. Standardize conditions (eyes open/closed). Use a high-density EEG system (e.g., 64+ channels) with a sampling rate ≥ 500 Hz to adequately capture higher frequencies. Impedance should be kept below 10 kΩ [10].
• 2. Preprocessing: Apply band-pass filtering (e.g., 0.5-70 Hz) and notch filtering (e.g., 50/60 Hz). Identify and reject segments with large muscle artifacts, eye blinks, or gross head movements. This can be done manually or via automated algorithms. In patient studies, high rejection rates (~37%) are common due to neurological symptoms [10].
• 3. Power Spectrum Calculation: For each artifact-free epoch and channel, compute the power spectral density (PSD) using a multitaper or Welch's method.
• 4. Spectral Parameterization with FOOOF: Fit the FOOOF algorithm to the PSD to separate the aperiodic ("1/f") component from periodic oscillatory peaks [10]. Key parameters to extract include:
  • Aperiodic Exponent & Offset: Quantifies the background 1/f slope.
  • Oscillatory Peaks: Center frequency, bandwidth (Hz), and power of each identified peak.
• 5. Spatial & Clinical Correlation: Calculate the antero-posterior (AP) gradient of peak frequencies [10]. Correlate spectral features (e.g., dominant peak frequency in 1-14 Hz range) with behavioral scores like the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) [10].

Protocol 2: Quantifying Rhythmicity with the Phase-Autocorrelation Function (pACF)

This protocol measures the temporal stability of oscillations, complementing power-based analyses [8].

• 1. Signal Acquisition & Preprocessing: Follow Steps 1 and 2 from Protocol 1.
• 2. Complex Wavelet Filtering: To obtain the phase time series, filter the data using a complex wavelet filter (e.g., Morlet wavelet) across a log-spaced set of frequencies (e.g., 2 to 100 Hz) [8].
• 3. Compute Phase Time Series: Extract the instantaneous phase angle from the complex analytic signal at each frequency and time point.
• 4. Calculate pACF: For a given frequency, compute the autocorrelation of the complex phase time series across a range of time lags. The pACF value at lag k is given by the circular-linear correlation between the phase time series and its time-lagged copy [8].
• 5. Determine pACF Lifetime: Transform the pACF into a cumulative function. The pACF lifetime is the first lag at which this cumulative function exceeds a predefined threshold (e.g., 0.9), indicating the lag that accounts for 90% of the total above-chance phase autocorrelation [8].
• 6. Statistical Validation: Generate surrogate data (e.g., phase-randomized) to create a null distribution of pACF lifetimes. The observed pACF lifetime is significant if it exceeds the 99th percentile of the surrogate distribution (p ≤ 0.01) [8].

The following diagram illustrates the core workflow and logical relationships of the pACF method for quantifying rhythmicity.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This section details essential tools and computational methods for conducting rigorous research on neural oscillations.

Table 3: Essential Tools for Neural Oscillation and Artifact Research

Tool / Solution	Type	Primary Function	Application Note
FOOOF	Algorithm / Software	Parameterizes neural power spectra into periodic & aperiodic components [10]	Critical for moving beyond visual inspection of spectra; enables quantification of peak characteristics and 1/f background [10].
SANTIA Toolbox	Software Toolbox	Detects and removes artifacts in LFP/EEG using machine learning [13]	Employs LSTM networks to recreate artifactual segments, maintaining signal continuity without discarding data [13].
Phase-Autocorrelation Function (pACF)	Analytical Metric	Quantifies rhythmicity (temporal stability) independent of amplitude [8]	Reveals narrowband oscillations that are obscured in power spectra; dissociates "oscillatoriness" from signal strength [8].
Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM) Network	Machine Learning Model	Predicts and replaces artifact-corrupted signal segments [13]	Provides a channel-independent solution for artifact removal, effective even when global artifacts corrupt most channels [13].
High-Density MEG/EEG Systems	Recording Equipment	Maps the cortical distribution of natural frequencies with high spatial resolution [9]	Essential for revealing medial-to-lateral and posterior-to-anterior frequency gradients in the human brain [9].

Accurate characterization of delta, theta, alpha, and beta rhythms is foundational to neuroscience research and its clinical applications, including drug development for neurological and psychiatric disorders. This endeavor is complicated by the inherent spectral overlap between these oscillations and non-neural artifacts. A modern approach requires moving beyond simple power spectral analysis to embrace methods that directly quantify rhythmicity, such as the pACF, and robust artifact removal techniques, such as those based on wavelet transforms and machine learning. By integrating these advanced protocols and tools, researchers can achieve a more precise and reliable dissection of brain dynamics, ultimately leading to clearer biomarkers and more effective therapeutic interventions.

The accurate interpretation of neurophysiological signals, such as electroencephalography (EEG), is fundamental to neuroscience research and clinical neurology. However, these signals are persistently contaminated by physiological artifacts originating from ocular movement (EOG), muscle activity (EMG), and cardiac rhythms (ECG). A central challenge in this domain is the significant spectral overlap between genuine neural signals and these artifacts, which can obscure true brain activity and lead to erroneous conclusions in both academic research and drug development studies. Characterizing the spectral and temporal signatures of these artifacts is therefore not merely a signal processing exercise but a critical prerequisite for valid scientific and clinical outcomes. This guide provides an in-depth technical analysis of these major artifacts, detailing their spectral characteristics, methodologies for their identification and removal, and the implications of their frequency overlap with neural signals, providing researchers with the tools to enhance data fidelity.

Ocular Artifacts (EOG)

Spectral and Temporal Characteristics

Ocular artifacts, generated by eye blinks and movements, are among the most prevalent contaminants in EEG data. The electrooculographic (EOG) signal arises from the cornio-retinal potential, a steady potential difference across the eyeball. During blinks and saccades, this dipole rotates, creating a large electrical field that propagates across the scalp, most prominently over the frontal and prefrontal regions due to their proximity to the eyes [14]. The table below summarizes the core characteristics of EOG artifacts.

Table 1: Characteristics of Ocular (EOG) Artifacts

Feature	Characteristics	Impact on Neural Signals
Spectral Content	Dominantly low-frequency, typically below 4 Hz [15].	Overlaps with and can obscure delta brain rhythms (0.5-4 Hz).
Amplitude	High-amplitude peaks, often an order of magnitude larger than EEG [14].	Can saturate amplifiers and mask concurrent neural activity.
Topography	Most pronounced in frontal EEG channels; volume conducts to central sites [16].	Limits the reliability of frontal lobe signal interpretation.
Morphology	Slow, biphasic for blinks; sharper for saccades [14].	Can be mistaken for slow cortical potentials or epileptiform spikes.

Advanced Removal Methodologies

Given the spectral overlap with neural signals, simple high-pass filtering is ineffective as it would distort genuine brain activity. Advanced blind source separation techniques are required.

• Independent Component Analysis (ICA): ICA is a dominant method for EOG artifact removal. It decomposes multi-channel EEG recordings into statistically independent components (ICs), a subset of which often represent ocular artifacts. These can be manually or automatically identified and removed before signal reconstruction [14] [16].
• Wavelet-Enhanced ICA (wICA): An advanced hybrid method that improves upon standard ICA. After ICA decomposition, wavelet transform is applied to the artifactual ICs. EOG peaks are identified and corrected selectively within the component using wavelet thresholding, rather than removing the entire component. This approach preserves more neural information present in the component, reducing signal distortion in both time and spectral domains [14].
• Regression with EEMD-Cleaned References: Conventional regression uses a reference EOG channel to subtract artifacts from EEG but suffers from bidirectional contamination (the EOG channel itself contains cerebral activity). An improved method involves first applying Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (EEMD) to the raw reference EOG signal to obtain Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMFs). An unsupervised technique like PCA is then used to reconstruct a "clean" EOG reference, which is subsequently used in the regression, leading to lower distortion of the underlying EEG [16].

The following diagram illustrates the workflow of the wICA and EEMD-Regression methods, which are designed to minimize neural data loss.

Figure 1: Workflows for advanced EOG artifact removal.

Muscular Artifacts (EMG)

Spectral and Temporal Characteristics

Electromyographic (EMG) artifacts originate from the electrical activity of cranial, facial, neck, and head muscles during contraction. Even minor contractions, such as jaw clenching or forehead tensing, can generate significant EMG. Unlike EOG, EMG has a broad spectral profile that extensively overlaps with neural signals, making it particularly challenging to remove.

Table 2: Characteristics of Muscular (EMG) Artifacts

Feature	Characteristics	Impact on Neural Signals
Spectral Content	Broadband, high-frequency content, typically 5-2000 Hz, with significant overlap in beta (13-30 Hz) and gamma (>30 Hz) ranges [16] [17].	Can mask high-frequency neural oscillations crucial for cognitive process studies.
Amplitude	Highly variable; can be large and transient.	Increases overall signal power, obscuring lower-amplitude EEG.
Topography	Localized to muscle group proximity (e.g., temporal for jaw); can be widespread.	Contaminates signals from temporal and frontal electrodes.
Morphology	Stochastic, spike-like, non-stationary.	Can be misinterpreted as epileptic spikes or pathological high-frequency activity.

Quantitative Analysis for Fatigue and Artifact Identification

sEMG is not only an artifact source but also a primary tool for monitoring muscle fatigue, which is characterized by specific spectral and temporal shifts.

• Power Spectral Analysis: During sustained or fatiguing muscle contractions, the median frequency (MDF) of the sEMG power spectrum demonstrates a consistent decrease. This shift to lower frequencies is attributed to a reduction in muscle fiber conduction velocity and metabolic changes [18].
• Turns-Amplitude Analysis (TAA): This time-domain analysis quantifies the number of turns per second (T/s)—signal peak points where polarity changes with a minimum amplitude difference—and the mean turn amplitude (MTA). During dynamic fatiguing tasks, T/s shows a significant decrease and is strongly correlated with grip strength fatigue. During recovery, T/s increases, making it a robust indicator of both fatigue and recovery states [18].

Table 3: sEMG Parameters for Muscle Fatigue Assessment

sEMG Parameter	Definition	Change During Fatigue	Correlation with Fatigue Level
Median Frequency (MDF)	Frequency that divides the power spectrum into two equal halves.	Significant decrease [18].	Negative, moderate correlation [18].
Turns per Second (T/s)	Number of signal peaks with polarity change per second.	Significant decrease [18].	Strongest correlation; effective for fatigue and recovery [18].
Mean Turn Amplitude (MTA)	Average amplitude of the identified turns.	Gradual increase [18].	Lowest correlation [18].

Cardiac Artifacts (ECG)

Spectral and Temporal Characteristics

Cardiac artifacts manifest in EEG recordings primarily through the electrical activity of the heart, specifically the QRS complex. This artifact arises due to the volume conduction of the heart's electrical field to the scalp, a phenomenon more likely in specific electrode montages and with certain physiological conditions.

Table 4: Characteristics of Cardiac (ECG) Artifacts

Feature	Characteristics	Impact on Neural Signals
Spectral Content	The QRS complex has a broad spectral range, but its fundamental frequency is around 10-20 Hz, overlapping with alpha and beta bands.	Can introduce rhythmic, spike-like contamination in central and parietal channels.
Amplitude	Can be highly variable; often large enough to be clearly distinguishable.	May obscure genuine epileptiform spikes that occur synchronously with the QRS complex.
Topography	Often observed in EEG channels with a common reference, particularly in central and posterior regions [19].	Affects regions typically associated with somatosensory and visual processing.
Morphology	Stereotypical, periodic waveform reflecting the QRS complex (approx. 100 ms duration) [19].	Its regularity helps in discrimination from aperiodic neural spikes.

Advanced Detection and Removal Techniques

The periodic nature and stereotypical shape of the ECG artifact facilitate its detection and removal.

• QRS Complex Detection and Selective Filtering: A highly effective method involves first detecting the R-peaks in the concurrent ECG recording (e.g., using open-source algorithms like R_peak_detect.m in MATLAB). Once the QRS complexes are located, a filter (e.g., a zero-phase filter) is applied only to the EEG segments coinciding with these complexes. This selective approach prevents the loss of critical neural information, such as epileptiform spikes, in non-QRS segments [19].
• Spectral Feature Extraction for Cardiac-Related Conditions: ECG spectral properties can also be used diagnostically. For sleep apnea detection, a method combining EEMD and ICA (EEMD-ICA) can denoise single-lead ECG signals. The Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) is then applied to specific IMFs to extract spectral features like maximum instantaneous frequency (femax). These features show statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) between normal and sleep apnea subjects and can be classified with high accuracy (92.9%) using a Random Forest model [20] [21].

The workflow below details the process of selective QRS filtering and ECG-based condition diagnosis.

Figure 2: Workflows for ECG artifact handling and analysis.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This section catalogs key computational tools and data processing techniques essential for artifact research.

Table 5: Essential Research Tools and Methods

Tool/Method	Function	Example Use Case
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	Blind source separation to isolate neural and artifactual components.	Core to multiple EOG and EMG artifact removal pipelines [14] [16].
Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (EEMD)	Adaptive, data-driven signal decomposition into Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMFs).	Used for denoising ECG/EOG references and feature extraction [20] [16].
Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT)	Multi-resolution time-frequency analysis using wavelet basis functions.	Selective correction of EOG peaks in ICA components (wICA) [14].
Turns-Amplitude Analysis (TAA)	Quantifies motor unit action potential firing patterns in time domain.	Assessing muscle fatigue and recovery from sEMG signals [18].
Graph Signal Processing (GSP)	Analyzes signals defined on graph structures, such as brain connectivity networks.	Modeling spectral features of brain connectivity for disorder classification [22].
Random Forest Classifier	Ensemble machine learning model for classification and regression.	Classifying spectral features for sleep apnea detection from ECG [20].
R-peak Detection Algorithms	Algorithms to identify the R-wave in ECG signals.	Critical first step for QRS-complex-based EEG artifact removal [19].

The pervasive challenge of spectral overlap between neural signals and physiological artifacts necessitates a sophisticated, methodical approach to data preprocessing. Ocular (EOG), muscular (EMG), and cardiac (ECG) artifacts each possess distinct yet overlapping spectral signatures that, if unaddressed, critically compromise data integrity. As demonstrated, modern mitigation strategies move beyond simple filtering towards adaptive, data-driven methodologies such as wavelet-enhanced ICA, EEMD-based regression, and selective QRS-filtering, which prioritize the preservation of underlying neural information. For researchers, particularly in drug development where biomarker accuracy is paramount, the rigorous application of these advanced characterization and removal protocols is not optional but fundamental. The continued development and validation of these tools, especially those leveraging machine learning for automatic classification, will further empower scientists to isolate true brain activity, thereby enhancing the reliability and translational impact of neurophysiological research.

The analysis of neural signals, particularly electroencephalography (EEG), is fundamentally complicated by the pervasive issue of frequency overlap between neurophysiologically relevant brain activity and various biological artifacts. This spectral entanglement presents a critical challenge for traditional filtering techniques, which operate on the assumption that neural information and artifacts occupy distinct, separable frequency bands. In reality, ocular artifacts from eye blinks exhibit low-frequency components that substantially overlap with the clinically crucial delta rhythm (<4 Hz), while muscle artifacts from jaw clenching or forehead tension produce high-frequency content that intrudes upon the beta and gamma bands (>13 Hz) essential for understanding cognitive processing and motor commands [4]. This overlap renders simple frequency-based filtering inadequate, as such methods cannot discriminate between artifact and brain signal within shared frequency ranges, inevitably leading to the irreversible loss of neural information.

Traditional approaches, including regression-based methods, blind source separation (BSS), and wavelet transforms, have provided foundational tools for artifact management [4]. However, their effectiveness remains limited by their reliance on simplistic assumptions about the statistical properties and generative mechanisms of both neural signals and artifacts. The emergence of wearable EEG technology with its dry electrodes, reduced channel counts, and operation in uncontrolled environments has further exacerbated these limitations, intensifying the need for more sophisticated processing pipelines that can preserve neural information integrity under challenging recording conditions [23]. This whitepaper examines the fundamental limitations of traditional filtering methods, explores advanced deep learning approaches that offer promising alternatives, and provides practical guidance for researchers seeking to minimize neural information loss in their experimental workflows.

Fundamental Limitations of Traditional Filtering Approaches

Traditional artifact removal techniques share a common vulnerability: their operation inevitably discards valuable neural information while targeting artifacts, due to their inability to resolve the fundamental frequency overlap problem. These methods can be broadly categorized into several classes, each with distinct mechanisms of information loss.

Spectral Filtering and Blind Source Separation

Basic spectral filtering (e.g., high-pass, low-pass, band-stop) represents the most straightforward approach to artifact removal but suffers from the crudest form of information loss. By eliminating entire frequency bands suspected of containing artifacts, these filters simultaneously remove neural signals sharing those frequency ranges. For instance, applying a high-pass filter at 2 Hz to remove eye-blink artifacts would also eliminate portions of the clinically relevant delta rhythm, while a low-pass filter at 30 Hz to reduce muscle artifacts would truncate important gamma-band activity related to cognitive processing [4].

Blind Source Separation (BSS) techniques, particularly Independent Component Analysis (ICA), represent a more sophisticated approach that separates multichannel EEG signals into statistically independent components. While theoretically capable of distinguishing neural from artifactual sources based on their statistical properties, ICA faces practical limitations including:

• Dependency on high-channel counts for effective separation, making it less suitable for wearable EEG systems with limited electrodes [23]
• Subjectivity in component classification requiring manual inspection and labeling of components as neural or artifactual
• Inability to fully separate sources with similar statistical properties or temporal dynamics

The core limitation of both approaches stems from their fundamental assumption that artifacts and neural signals occupy separable manifolds in either the frequency or statistical domain. In reality, the complex nonlinear interactions between neurophysiological processes and artifact generators create overlapping distributions that cannot be fully disentangled through linear decomposition or simple frequency exclusion [6] [4].

Impact on Wearable EEG and Real-World Applications

The limitations of traditional filtering become particularly pronounced in the context of wearable EEG systems, which increasingly support applications in real-world environments beyond controlled laboratory settings. A systematic review of artifact management techniques for wearable EEG identified that traditional methods like ICA and wavelet transforms face significant challenges when confronted with the specific artifact properties of wearable systems, including reduced spatial resolution, motion artifacts from natural movement, and electromagnetic interference in uncontrolled environments [23].

Table 1: Traditional Filtering Methods and Their Limitations

Method	Mechanism	Primary Limitations	Information Loss Risk
Spectral Filtering	Attenuates predefined frequency bands	Cannot resolve frequency overlap; removes valid neural signals	High - non-selective removal of frequency content
Regression-Based	Estimates and subtracts artifact using reference signals	Requires reference channels; imperfect artifact modeling	Medium - may over/under subtract neural content
ICA/BSS	Separates sources by statistical independence	Requires high channel count; manual component selection	Variable - dependent on correct component rejection
Wavelet Transform	Time-frequency decomposition and thresholding	Threshold selection critical; mixed efficacy across artifact types	Medium - co-elimination of neural features with similar time-frequency signatures

Advanced Deep Learning Approaches for Artifact Removal

The limitations of traditional methods have spurred the development of sophisticated deep learning approaches that leverage neural networks to learn complex, nonlinear mappings between artifact-contaminated and clean EEG signals. These methods fundamentally differ from traditional techniques by operating on pattern recognition principles rather than explicit statistical or frequency-based assumptions.

Architectures for Neural Signal Processing

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have demonstrated particular effectiveness for certain artifact types, with Complex CNN architectures showing superior performance for removing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) artifacts according to comparative benchmarks [6]. CNNs excel at capturing both spatial and temporal patterns in multichannel EEG data through their hierarchical feature learning capabilities.

State Space Models (SSMs) represent another advanced architecture, with multi-modular SSM networks (M4) demonstrating state-of-the-art performance for removing complex artifacts from transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) and transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) [6]. These models effectively capture the dynamic nature of neural signals and artifacts through their internal state representations.

Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have emerged as particularly powerful tools for artifact removal, employing a dual-network architecture where a generator network produces cleaned EEG signals while a discriminator network evaluates their similarity to genuine artifact-free data [4]. The adversarial training process enables the model to learn sophisticated representations of both artifacts and neural signals without explicit manual specification of their characteristics.

Specialized Deep Learning Models

Recent research has produced several specialized deep learning architectures optimized for specific artifact removal challenges:

The AnEEG model incorporates Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) layers within a GAN architecture, enabling the network to capture temporal dependencies and contextual information critical for distinguishing artifacts from neural activity patterns [4]. By integrating LSTM's memory capabilities with GAN's generative power, this approach can effectively separate overlapping temporal patterns of neural signals and artifacts.

GCTNet combines transformer networks with GAN-guided parallel CNNs to capture both global and temporal dependencies in EEG signals [4]. The transformer components enable attention mechanisms that focus on clinically relevant neural patterns while suppressing artifacts, demonstrating performance improvements of 11.15% in relative root mean square error (RRMSE) and 9.81 in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) compared to conventional methods.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Deep Learning vs. Traditional Methods

Model/Technique	Stimulation Type	Performance Metric	Result	Reference
Complex CNN	tDCS	RRMSE (temporal)	Best performance for tDCS	[6]
Multi-modular SSM (M4)	tACS, tRNS	RRMSE (spectral)	Best performance for tACS/tRNS	[6]
AnEEG (LSTM-GAN)	Multiple artifacts	Correlation Coefficient	Strong linear agreement with ground truth	[4]
GCTNet	Ocular, muscle	SNR improvement	+9.81 SNR improvement	[4]
Wavelet Transform	General artifacts	RRMSE	Lower performance than deep learning	[6] [4]

Experimental Protocols and Methodological Considerations

Rigorous experimental design is essential for developing and validating artifact removal techniques that minimize neural information loss. The following protocols represent current best practices in the field.

Benchmarking and Evaluation Framework

Comprehensive evaluation of artifact removal techniques requires standardized benchmarking approaches:

Semi-Synthetic Dataset Creation: Combining clean EEG data with carefully calibrated synthetic artifacts enables controlled evaluation with known ground truth [6]. This approach allows precise quantification of performance metrics by providing a reference clean signal that is unavailable in real contaminated recordings. The process involves:

• Acquisition of high-quality EEG during resting state with minimal artifacts
• Recording of actual artifacts (ocular, muscle, movement) in separate sessions
• Linear mixing of artifacts with clean EEG at controlled signal-to-noise ratios
• Validation of the mixing process to ensure physiological plausibility

Performance Metrics: Multiple quantitative measures should be employed to comprehensively evaluate preservation of neural information:

• Root Relative Mean Squared Error (RRMSE) in temporal and spectral domains
• Correlation Coefficient (CC) between cleaned and ground truth signals
• Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and Signal-to-Artifact Ratio (SAR) improvements
• Normalized Mean Squared Error (NMSE) for overall reconstruction accuracy [4]

Cross-Stimulation Validation: Techniques should be evaluated across different stimulation types (tDCS, tACS, tRNS) as performance varies significantly depending on artifact characteristics [6].

Implementation Workflow for Deep Learning Approaches

The implementation of deep learning models for artifact removal follows a structured pipeline:

Deep Learning Artifact Removal Workflow

Implementing effective artifact removal requires both computational resources and carefully curated data materials. The following table summarizes key resources mentioned in recent literature.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Artifact Removal Research

Resource	Type	Function/Application	Example Sources
Semi-Synthetic Datasets	Data	Controlled evaluation with known ground truth	EEG + synthetic tES artifacts [6]
Public EEG Repositories	Data	Model training and benchmarking	PhysioNet, EEG Eye Artefact Dataset, BCI Competition IV2b [4]
Deep Learning Frameworks	Software	Implementation of neural networks	TensorFlow, PyTorch, Keras [24]
Visualization Tools	Software	Model interpretation and debugging	TensorBoard, PyTorchViz, NN-SVG [24]
Wearable EEG Systems	Hardware	Real-world data acquisition	Systems with dry electrodes, ≤16 channels [23]
Auxiliary Sensors	Hardware	Enhanced artifact detection	IMU, EOG, EMG reference sensors [23]

Visualization and Interpretation of Results

Effective visualization is critical for interpreting artifact removal performance and understanding model behavior. The following diagram illustrates the relationship between different neural signal components and the overlapping challenge this creates for traditional filtering.

Neural Signal and Artifact Frequency Overlap

The irreversible loss of neural information through traditional filtering methods represents a fundamental challenge in neural signal processing, particularly given the spectral overlap between artifacts and brain activity of interest. While traditional approaches like spectral filtering and blind source separation have provided valuable tools, their inherent limitations in resolving frequency overlap necessitate more sophisticated solutions. Deep learning methods, including GANs, state space models, and hybrid architectures, offer promising alternatives by learning complex, nonlinear mappings that can separate neural signals from artifacts while preserving clinically and scientifically relevant information.

Future advancements in this field will likely focus on several key areas: the development of brain foundation models (BFMs) pretrained on large-scale neural datasets to enable robust generalization across tasks and modalities [25]; improved interpretability techniques to build trust in deep learning models and provide insights into neural mechanisms; and hardware-efficient implementations suitable for real-time processing in implantable and wearable devices with strict power and computational constraints [26]. As these technologies mature, they will increasingly enable researchers to extract meaningful neural information from noisy recordings while minimizing the irreversible information loss that has historically plagued traditional filtering approaches.

The proliferation of neurotechnologies across clinical diagnostics, basic neuroscience, and drug development is fundamentally contingent on the integrity of neural signals. A primary threat to this integrity stems from physiological and environmental artifacts that share spectral bandwidth with neural signals of interest, a phenomenon known as frequency overlap. This technical guide examines how unresolved artifacts systematically distort research findings and clinical interpretations. We detail the biophysical origins of these artifacts, quantify their impact on analytical outcomes, and present a contemporary evaluation of advanced mitigation strategies, including deep learning and state-space models. Furthermore, we situate these technical challenges within a growing regulatory landscape focused on neurorights and data protection, underscoring the ethical imperative of robust artifact management for trustworthy neural data science.

Neural data, obtained from technologies such as electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), provides a window into brain function. However, this data is invariably contaminated by artifacts—unwanted signals from non-neural sources. The central problem is that these artifacts often occupy the same frequency domains as vital neural oscillations, making separation exceptionally difficult [4].

For instance, eye blinks generate low-frequency signals (typically below 4 Hz) that obscure delta brain waves, while muscle activity (EMG) produces high-frequency noise (above 13 Hz) that overlaps with and can mask beta and gamma neural activity [4]. This spectral aliasing means that simple frequency-based filtering is often ineffective, as it removes valuable neural information along with the artifact. The inability to cleanly separate these signals directly compromises the validity of subsequent analyses, from functional connectivity maps to biomarker identification for neurological drugs. The issue is particularly acute in wearable neurotechnology, which operates in ecologically valid but noisy environments, promising richer data at the cost of increased contamination [27]. Consequently, unresolved artifacts are not merely a technical nuisance; they represent a fundamental challenge to data integrity with cascading effects on research conclusions, clinical diagnostics, and therapeutic development.

Quantifying the Impact: A Data-Driven Perspective

The consequences of inadequate artifact management can be quantified across multiple dimensions, from signal fidelity to clinical predictive power. The table below summarizes key performance metrics from recent artifact removal studies, illustrating the measurable benefits of advanced denoising techniques.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Advanced Artifact Removal Methods

Study & Technology	Artifact Type	Key Metric	Result	Implication for Data Integrity
OPM-MEG with Channel Attention Mechanism [28]	Ocular & Cardiac	Artifact Recognition Accuracy	98.52%	Prevents misinterpretation of artifacts as neural events, crucial for ERF studies.
		Macro-average Score	98.15%
Deep Learning (AnEEG) on EEG [4]	Mixed Biological	Correlation Coefficient (CC)	Higher CC vs. baselines	Ensures cleaned signal maintains a strong linear relationship with ground-truth neural data.
		Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)	Improved SNR & SAR	Enhances the detectability of true neural signals against background noise.
ADC Histogram in Spinal MRI [29]	MRI Artifacts	Predictive AUC (Clinical Model)	0.704	Shows baseline performance without advanced artifact correction.
		Predictive AUC (ADC Histogram Model)	0.871	Demonstrates significantly improved prognostic accuracy for tumor recurrence when using corrected data.

Beyond these metrics, a systematic review of wearable EEG revealed that most processing pipelines integrate detection and removal but rarely separate their individual impact on performance, making it difficult to benchmark progress in the field [27]. This highlights a critical methodological gap. Furthermore, the selection of an optimal artifact removal strategy is highly dependent on the stimulation type or artifact source. For example, in Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES), a convolutional network (Complex CNN) performed best for tDCS artifacts, while a multi-modular network based on State Space Models (SSMs) was superior for the more complex tACS and tRNS artifacts [6]. A one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient for preserving data integrity across diverse experimental and clinical paradigms.

Experimental Protocols for Artifact Management

To ensure data integrity, researchers must employ rigorous and validated experimental protocols. The following sections detail methodologies from recent, high-impact studies.

Protocol: Deep Learning for tES Artifact Removal

This protocol is adapted from a benchmark study comparing machine learning methods for removing transcranial electrical stimulation artifacts from EEG data [6].

• 1. Data Preparation and Synthesis: Create a semi-synthetic dataset by combining clean, artifact-free EEG recordings with synthetically generated tES artifacts (tDCS, tACS, tRNS). This provides a known ground truth for controlled model evaluation.
• 2. Model Selection and Training: Train a suite of eleven artifact removal models. This should include:
  • Shallow Methods: Standard filters and blind source separation (e.g., ICA).
  • Deep Neural Networks: Including Complex CNN.
  • State Space Models (SSMs): Such as the multi-modular M4 network.
• 3. Model Evaluation:
  • Quantitative Analysis: Calculate the Root Relative Mean Squared Error (RRMSE) in both temporal and spectral domains and the Correlation Coefficient (CC) between the cleaned signal and the ground-truth clean EEG.
  • Model Selection: Determine the best-performing model for each specific tES modality (e.g., Complex CNN for tDCS, M4 SSM for tACS/tRNS).
• 4. Application and Validation: Apply the selected model to real, contaminated EEG data and validate the physiological plausibility of the resulting "cleaned" neural signals.

Protocol: Automatic OPM-MEG Artifact Removal with Magnetic Reference

This protocol uses a magnetic reference signal and a channel attention mechanism to automatically identify and remove physiological artifacts in OPM-MEG data [28].

• 1. Reference Signal Acquisition: Utilize magnetic reference sensors, placed near the head but away from primary neural sources, to capture clean templates of artifact signals (e.g., eye blinks, cardiac activity).
• 2. Component Correlation Analysis: Perform blind source separation (e.g., ICA) on the main OPM-MEG data to obtain independent components (ICs). Calculate the Randomized Dependence Coefficient (RDC) between each IC and the magnetic reference signals to reliably identify artifact-laden components.
• 3. Attention Model Training:
  • Dataset Construction: Use the RDC results to create a labeled dataset of artifact and neural components.
  • Network Training: Train a channel attention network that fuses features from global average pooling (GAP) and global max pooling (GMP) layers. This model learns to automatically recognize artifact components based on their correlation with the reference signal.
• 4. Artifact Removal and Reconstruction: Remove the components classified as artifacts by the model and reconstruct the OPM-MEG signal. Quantify improvements in the Event-Related Field (ERF) response and Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR).

Diagram 1: OPM-MEG artifact removal workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful artifact management relies on a combination of computational tools, curated data, and hardware. The following table catalogues key resources for developing and validating artifact removal pipelines.

Table 2: Key Reagents and Resources for Neural Artifact Research

Item Name	Type	Function/Benefit	Example Use Case
Semi-Synthetic Datasets	Data	Provides a ground truth for controlled algorithm evaluation by mixing clean EEG with known artifacts.	Benchmarking denoising models [6] [4].
Public EEG Datasets (e.g., EEG Eye Artefact, PhysioNet)	Data	Enables method validation and reproducibility on standardized, annotated data.	Training deep learning models like GANs [4].
Magnetic Reference Sensors	Hardware	Provides a clean recording of artifact sources (eye, heart) independent of neural signals.	OPM-MEG artifact removal [28].
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	Algorithm	Separates mixed signals into statistically independent components for artifact identification.	Isulating ocular and muscular artifacts in EEG [27].
Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)	Computational Model	Generates artifact-free signals through an adversarial process between generator and discriminator.	EEG denoising with temporal fidelity [4].
State Space Models (SSMs)	Computational Model	Excels at modeling complex, time-dependent dynamics like tACS and tRNS artifacts.	Removing transcranial stimulation artifacts [6].
Channel Attention Mechanism	Computational Model	Allows a model to focus on the most relevant sensor channels for detecting specific artifacts.	Automatic artifact recognition in MEG [28].

Regulatory and Ethical Dimensions

The technical challenge of ensuring data integrity is increasingly intertwined with a rapidly evolving regulatory and ethical landscape. Neural data is uniquely sensitive, potentially revealing thoughts, emotions, and decision-making patterns, and is thus being classified as a special category of data requiring heightened protection [30] [31].

• Neurorights and Cognitive Liberty: There is a growing global movement to establish "neurorights," focusing on mental privacy, identity, and cognitive liberty. Chile has already amended its constitution to protect mental integrity, and Spain's Charter of Digital Rights explicitly addresses neurotechnology [32]. The core ethical argument is that if a person's thoughts are to be considered inviolable, then the data that can reveal those thoughts deserves exceptional protection.

• Emerging Legislation and Guidelines: In the United States, the proposed MIND Act would direct the FTC to study neural data processing and identify regulatory gaps [30]. Simultaneously, states like California, Colorado, and Montana have amended their privacy laws to include neural data within the definition of "sensitive data," triggering stricter consent and processing requirements [30] [32]. Internationally, the Council of Europe is developing detailed guidelines for data protection in neuroscience, interpreting principles like purpose limitation, data minimization, and fairness in the context of neural data [31].

The ethical imperative is clear: the failure to adequately resolve artifacts does not merely produce scientifically invalid results; it risks generating misleading neural profiles that could lead to misdiagnosis, discriminatory profiling, or unwarranted neuromarketing. Implementing state-of-the-art artifact removal is thus not just a scientific best practice but a fundamental component of ethical and compliant research in the age of neurotechnology.

Diagram 2: From technical problem to regulatory response.

The integrity of neural data is the bedrock upon which valid neuroscience research and safe clinical neurotechnology are built. The pervasive issue of frequency overlap between artifacts and neural signals poses a continuous threat to this integrity, capable of skewing everything from basic brain dynamics research to the development of neurology drugs. While modern approaches, particularly deep learning and model-based frameworks, show significant promise in mitigating these artifacts, their success is contingent upon a rigorous, context-aware application. Furthermore, as regulatory bodies worldwide begin to recognize the profound sensitivity of neural data, the technical capability to robustly clean this data will become inseparable from the ethical and legal obligations of researchers and clinicians. Therefore, a continued focus on advancing and standardizing artifact management protocols is not merely a technical pursuit but a prerequisite for trustworthy and responsible progress in the neural sciences.

From Blind Source Separation to AI: Modern Methodologies for Artifact Management

The analysis of neural signals, such as those obtained via electroencephalography (EEG), is fundamentally complicated by the presence of artifacts—unwanted signals originating from both internal (e.g., eye blinks, muscle activity) and external (e.g., electrical interference) sources. A significant challenge in this domain is the frequency overlap between genuine neural signals and these artifacts, making their separation a non-trivial task. Techniques for Blind Source Separation (BSS), which aim to recover underlying source signals from observed mixtures without prior knowledge of the mixing process, are therefore indispensable. This technical guide delves into the theory and practice of the two most prominent BSS techniques—Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Independent Component Analysis (ICA)—framed within the critical context of neuroscientific research where distinguishing neural activity from artifacts is paramount.

Theoretical Foundations

The Problem of Blind Source Separation

The core objective of BSS is to estimate a set of source signals ( S ) from observed mixed signals ( X ), based on the linear model: [ X = A S ] where ( A ) is an unknown mixing matrix. The goal is to find a separation matrix ( W ) such that: [ Y = W X ] provides a close estimate of the original source signals ( S ) [33] [34]. The "blind" aspect signifies that this is done with little to no knowledge of the sources ( S ) or the mixing process ( A ).

Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

PCA is a statistical technique primarily used for dimensionality reduction and decorrelation. It transforms the original correlated variables into a new set of uncorrelated variables called principal components (PCs). These components are ordered such that the first few retain most of the variation present in the original dataset [35].

• Objective: To find orthogonal directions of maximum variance in the data.
• Assumption: The underlying sources are uncorrelated.
• Limitation for BSS: While PCA can decorrelate signals, statistical independence is a stronger condition than uncorrelation. PCA relies on second-order statistics (variance) and may fail to separate sources with identical frequency content or non-Gaussian distributions, which are common in biological signals [35] [34].

Independent Component Analysis (ICA)

ICA is a more powerful BSS technique designed to recover statistically independent, non-Gaussian source signals from their linear mixtures.

• Objective: To find components that are as statistically independent as possible by maximizing non-Gaussianity or minimizing mutual information [34].
• Assumptions:
  • The source signals are statistically independent.
  • The source signals have non-Gaussian distributions (with the possible exception of one Gaussian source).
  • The mixing matrix ( A ) is square and invertible (or the number of sensors is at least equal to the number of sources) [33] [34].
• Measures of Independence: ICA employs higher-order statistics, using measures such as:
  • Kurtosis: A measure of the "peakedness" or "tailedness" of a distribution.
  • Negentropy: A measure of non-Gaussianity based on differential entropy.
  • Mutual Information: A measure of the mutual dependence between variables, which ICA seeks to minimize [34].

Table 1: Core Conceptual Differences between PCA and ICA.

Feature	Principal Component Analysis (PCA)	Independent Component Analysis (ICA)
Primary Goal	Dimensionality reduction, variance maximization	Source separation, independence maximization
Statistical Basis	Second-order statistics (uncorrelation)	Higher-order statistics (independence)
Component Orthogonality	Yes, components are orthogonal	No, components are statistically independent but not necessarily orthogonal
Suitability for BSS	Limited, as it only decorrelates signals	High, specifically designed for separating independent sources
Typical Input	Correlated variables	Mixed signals from independent sources

A Comparative Analysis: ICA vs. PCA

The "cocktail party problem" serves as a classic illustration of the difference in performance between PCA and ICA. In this scenario, the goal is to separate individual voices (independent sources) from a mixture of conversations recorded by multiple microphones.

• PCA Performance: PCA would identify the principal components that account for the most variance in the recorded mixtures. However, these components often remain mixtures of the original voices and fail to isolate individual speakers satisfactorily because it only ensures the outputs are uncorrelated, not independent [35].
• ICA Performance: ICA, by leveraging the statistical independence and non-Gaussianity of the speech signals, is typically able to separate the individual voices from the mixed recordings with high fidelity. This makes it the preferred methodology for BSS tasks where the sources are independent [35].

Table 2: Comparative Summary of PCA and ICA in Practical Applications.

Aspect	PCA	ICA
Separation Capability	Poor for mixed independent sources	Effective for independent sources
Processing Speed	Generally faster	Can be computationally intensive
Output Interpretation	Components ordered by variance; may not correspond to physiologically distinct sources	Components are fundamental sources; can correspond to neural or artifactual signals
Key Advantage	Efficient dimensionality reduction and noise reduction if noise contributes little variance	Accurate separation of independent sources, even with overlapping frequencies
Main Disadvantage for BSS	Inability to separate sources based on independence	Relies on the independence and non-Gaussianity of sources; sensitive to algorithm choice

Critical Application in Neural Signal Processing

The Challenge of Frequency Overlap

A central issue in EEG and other neurophysiological signal analysis is that artifacts (e.g., from eye movements, muscle activity, or cardiac signals) often share spectral properties with neural signals of interest. For instance, the frequency band of a fetal ECG (fECG) can overlap with that of the maternal ECG (mECG) and other bioelectrical potentials [36]. Similarly, TMS-induced artifacts can mask early TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) [37]. Traditional filtering based on frequency is ineffective in these scenarios, necessitating the use of BSS techniques that leverage other statistical properties.

ICA for Artifact Removal in EEG and TMS-Evoked Potentials

ICA has become a cornerstone in EEG preprocessing pipelines for artifact removal. The process typically involves:

• Applying ICA to the multi-channel EEG data to decompose it into independent components (ICs).
• Identifying which ICs correspond to artifacts (e.g., via visual inspection of topographical maps and time courses, or using automated classifiers).
• Removing the artifact-related ICs.
• Reconstructing the "cleaned" EEG signal from the remaining neural components [37] [34].

However, a critical limitation of ICA has been identified in the context of TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs). Research shows that when an artifact repeats with very low trial-to-trial variability, it can create dependencies between underlying components. In such cases, ICA may become unreliable and incorrectly remove not only the artifact but also non-artifactual, brain-derived EEG data, leading to biased results. The study suggests measuring artifact variability from the ICA components themselves to predict cleaning accuracy, providing a crucial practical check for researchers [37].

The standard ICA model assumes source independence. In practical applications, however, source signals may exhibit some degree of dependence. To address this, Bounded Component Analysis (BCA) has been developed as an alternative BSS method. BCA replaces the strict independence assumption of ICA with the more relaxed assumptions that the source signals are bounded and have a Cartesian separable support. This allows BCA to separate both independent and dependent source signals, broadening its applicability. Recent research has focused on optimizing BCA algorithms, such as using an improved Beetle Antennae Search (BAS) algorithm, to enhance convergence speed and separation accuracy [33].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: ICA for Fetal ECG (fECG) Extraction

Objective: To isolate the fetal ECG (fECG) from abdominal recordings of a pregnant woman, which contain a mixture of maternal ECG (mECG), fECG, and other noise [36].

• Data Acquisition: Place multiple electrodes on the maternal abdomen and thorax. The thorax signal is primarily mECG, while the abdominal signal is a mixture of mECG, fECG, and other bioelectrical potentials.
• Preprocessing: Center the data (subtract the mean) and whiten it (remove correlations and scale variances to unity). This simplifies the subsequent ICA problem [36] [34].
• ICA Application: Apply an ICA algorithm (e.g., FastICA, Infomax) to the preprocessed multi-channel abdominal signals. The algorithm will estimate a separation matrix ( W ) and output independent components.
• Component Identification: Identify the components corresponding to the fECG and mECG. This can be done by comparing the components to the thoracic mECG reference or based on their temporal and spectral characteristics.
• Signal Reconstruction: Select the component(s) identified as the fECG. These can then be used to calculate the fetal heart rate (fBPM) and for further clinical analysis.
• Implementation: This method has been successfully implemented in real-time on embedded systems like the Arduino DUE for continuous monitoring [36].

Protocol 2: Assessing ICA Accuracy for TMS-EEG Artifact Removal

Objective: To systematically evaluate the accuracy of ICA in removing TMS-induced artifacts from TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) and to determine conditions under which ICA becomes unreliable [37].

• Simulation Setup: Use measured, artifact-free TEPs as a clean "ground truth" neural signal. Simulate TMS artifacts with controlled properties and superimpose them on the clean TEPs.
• Variability Manipulation: Systematically vary the trial-to-trial variability of the simulated artifact waveform, creating a range from deterministic (low variability) to stochastic (high variability) artifacts.
• ICA Processing: For each level of artifact variability, perform ICA-based cleaning on the simulated dataset.
• Accuracy Measurement: Compare the ICA-cleaned output to the original artifact-free TEPs. Measure the cleaning accuracy (e.g., using mean squared error or correlation) to determine how artifact variability affects performance.
• Variability Estimation: Develop a method to estimate the artifact variability directly from the ICA-derived components, without knowing the ground truth. Correlate this estimated variability with the measured cleaning accuracy.
• Outcome: The experiment demonstrates that low artifact variability leads to unreliable ICA cleaning and biased TEPs. It also shows that the accuracy of ICA can be predicted by measuring variability from the components, providing a practical guideline for researchers [37].

Table 3: Key Software and Analytical Tools for BSS Research.

Tool / Resource	Function / Description	Relevance to BSS
EEGLAB	An open-source MATLAB toolbox for EEG analysis.	Implements ICA algorithms (e.g., Infomax) and provides visualization tools (e.g., topoplots) for component inspection and rejection [34].
FastICA Algorithm	A computationally efficient algorithm for ICA.	Widely used for estimating independent components by maximizing non-Gaussianity via negentropy [34].
JADE Algorithm	Joint Approximate Diagonalization of Eigenmatrices.	An ICA algorithm that uses fourth-order cumulants to separate sources, known for its speed and deterministic output [34].
Embedded Systems (e.g., Arduino DUE)	Microcontroller boards for real-time processing.	Enable real-time implementation of BSS algorithms for point-of-care applications, such as continuous fetal monitoring [36].
Simulated Data	Computer-generated signals with known ground truth.	Crucial for validating and benchmarking the performance of BSS algorithms under controlled conditions, as seen in TMS-artifact studies [37].

Visualizing Workflows

Generalized BSS Model for Neural Data

ICA-Based EEG Artifact Removal Process

The separation of neural signals from artifacts, particularly in the presence of frequency overlap, relies heavily on sophisticated BSS techniques. While PCA serves as an excellent tool for initial dimensionality reduction and noise suppression, its inability to enforce statistical independence limits its utility for core BSS problems. ICA has emerged as a powerful and widely adopted method for this purpose, successfully isolating artifacts and neural sources in applications ranging from fetal ECG extraction to EEG cleaning. However, practitioners must be aware of its limitations, such as its reliance on source independence and its potential inaccuracy when dealing with highly stable, repetitive artifacts, as evidenced in TMS-EEG research. The field continues to evolve with methods like Bounded Component Analysis (BCA) offering promising avenues for separating even dependent sources. Ultimately, the informed application of these techniques, coupled with robust experimental protocols and validation, is essential for advancing the accuracy and reliability of neural signal analysis in both research and clinical diagnostics.

A central challenge in neural signal processing, particularly within electroencephalography (EEG) research, is the frequency overlap between neurophysiologically relevant brain activity and various biological artifacts. This overlap significantly complicates the isolation and analysis of neural correlates for scientific and clinical applications, including drug development and therapeutic monitoring. Ocular artifacts, such as blinks, typically manifest in the low-frequency range (below 4 Hz), while muscle artifacts exhibit high-frequency characteristics (above 13 Hz), both of which critically overlap with the standard EEG frequency band of 1–100 Hz [4]. Traditional filtering and signal processing techniques struggle to separate these overlapping sources without discarding valuable neural information. This technical guide explores how hybrid CNN-LSTM architectures provide a sophisticated deep-learning framework for targeted artifact cleaning, thereby enhancing the fidelity of neural data analysis.

Core Architecture: Principles of CNN-LSTM Hybrid Models

The CNN-LSTM hybrid model is a powerful synergy of two deep learning paradigms, designed to exploit the complementary strengths of each for processing complex, time-series data like neural signals.

Architectural Components and Data Flow

• Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Component: The CNN layers act as the front-end of the hybrid model. They are responsible for performing spatial feature extraction by applying learnable filters that convolve across the input data. In the context of multi-channel EEG, these layers can identify local patterns and correlations across electrode spaces. Their inherent properties of parameter sharing and translational invariance make them highly efficient for detecting salient features irrespective of their specific temporal location [38] [39].

• Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Component: The features extracted by the CNN are then fed into LSTM layers. LSTMs are a type of recurrent neural network (RNN) specifically designed to overcome the vanishing gradient problem. They incorporate a gating mechanism (input, forget, and output gates) that regulates the flow of information, allowing the network to learn and remember long-range temporal dependencies in sequential data [38]. This is crucial for understanding the dynamic evolution of neural states and distinguishing between sustained brain activity and transient artifacts.

The integrated data flow allows the hybrid model to simultaneously learn from both the spatial hierarchy of features and their temporal evolution, creating a rich representation of the input signals that is far more capable of disentangling overlapping sources than models using either component alone [38].

Quantitative Performance Advantages

Empirical studies across multiple domains demonstrate the superior performance of hybrid CNN-LSTM models compared to standalone architectures.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Deep Learning Models in Signal Processing Tasks

Model Architecture	Application Domain	Key Performance Metric	Reported Result
Hybrid CNN-LSTM	IoT Intrusion Detection [38]	Accuracy	99.87%
		False Positive Rate	0.13%
Standard LSTM	IoT Intrusion Detection [38]	Accuracy	Lower than Hybrid Model
GRU	Random Sea Wave Forecasting [40]	R² Score (short-term)	0.74
LSTM	Random Sea Wave Forecasting [40]	R² Score (short-term)	0.70
CNN-Only	Road Surface Classification [39]	Macro F1-Score	Lower than CNN-LSTM

Experimental Protocols for Neural Signal Cleaning

Implementing a CNN-LSTM model for targeted artifact cleaning requires a methodical pipeline from data preparation to model evaluation. The following protocol is synthesized from successful applications in EEG denoising [4] and related time-series processing tasks.

Data Preparation and Preprocessing

• Data Sourcing and Simulation: For controlled experimentation, a common approach is to create a semi-synthetic dataset by linearly mixing clean EEG segments with recorded artifact signals (e.g., EOG for ocular artifacts, EMG for muscle artifacts) [4]. This provides a known ground truth for validation. For real data, use publicly available datasets like the EEG Eye Artefact Dataset or the Grasp and Lift (GAL) dataset, which are annotated with artifact types [4].

• Signal Preprocessing:

  • Filtering: Apply a band-pass filter (e.g., 1-100 Hz) to confine the signal to the standard EEG range and remove DC drift and high-frequency noise.
  • Segmentation: Partition the continuous signal into shorter, fixed-length epochs (e.g., 1-2 second windows).
  • Normalization: Normalize the amplitude of the signals within each epoch, for instance, using energy threshold-based normalization [4], to ensure stable model training.

Model Implementation and Training

• Architecture Configuration:

  • Input Layer: Dimensions should match the segmented data (e.g., [timesteps, channels]).
  • CNN Block: Start with 1D convolutional layers. A typical starting point is 32-64 filters with a kernel size of 3-5. Use ReLU activation functions. This can be followed by a pooling layer (MaxPooling1D) to reduce dimensionality.
  • LSTM Block: The feature maps from the CNN are fed into an LSTM layer. A configuration of 50-100 LSTM units is a common starting point [4].
  • Output Layer: A final Dense layer with a linear activation function is used for regression to output the cleaned signal.

• Loss Function and Training: A critical component is the design of the loss function. Beyond simple Mean Squared Error (MSE), advanced implementations use a composite temporal-spatial-frequency loss [4]. This function combines:

  • The MSE from the time-series data.
  • The MSE from the power spectral density features, ensuring the cleaned signal preserves the original frequency content of the neural data. The model is trained using the Adam optimizer to minimize this loss function.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for CNN-LSTM Experiments

Reagent / Resource	Type	Function in Research	Example Source/Platform
EEG Eye Artefact Dataset	Dataset	Provides real EEG data with annotated ocular artifacts for model training and validation	Open-source repository [4]
Grasp and Lift (GAL) Dataset	Dataset	Contains 32-channel EEG recorded during motor tasks for testing artifact removal	Open-source repository [4]
GISAID Database	Dataset	Provides access to genomic sequences (e.g., Spike protein data) for cross-domain model validation	GISAID Initiative [41]
TensorFlow / PyTorch	Software Library	Provides flexible environment for building and training custom CNN-LSTM architectures	Open-source (Python)
MPU-6050 IMU	Hardware Sensor	Captures inertial data for validating architecture performance on non-neural time-series data	InvenSense [39]
Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)	Framework	Can be integrated with LSTM for adversarial training, enhancing denoising performance [4]	Custom implementation

Performance Evaluation Metrics

The effectiveness of the cleaning process is quantified using multiple metrics, which compare the model's output against the ground truth (clean) signal [4]:

• Normalized Mean Squared Error (NMSE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE): Measure the overall difference between the cleaned and original clean signal. Lower values indicate better performance.
• Correlation Coefficient (CC): Quantifies the linear relationship between the cleaned and clean signals. A value closer to 1.0 is desirable.
• Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and Signal-to-Artifact Ratio (SAR): Assess the improvement in signal quality post-cleaning. Higher values indicate more effective artifact removal.

Hybrid CNN-LSTM architectures represent a significant advancement in targeted cleaning of neural signals plagued by frequency overlap. By integrating spatial feature extraction with temporal sequence modeling, these models achieve a nuanced understanding of signal content that enables superior separation of neural activity from artifacts compared to traditional methods or single-type networks. Their proven efficacy, demonstrated by high accuracy and low error rates in diverse applications, makes them a powerful tool for researchers and drug development professionals who rely on high-fidelity neural data.

Future work in this field is likely to focus on several promising areas. Federated learning approaches could be integrated to train models on distributed datasets while preserving patient privacy, a critical concern in medical research [38] [25]. Furthermore, the exploration of Brain Foundation Models (BFMs)—large-scale models pre-trained on vast amounts of neural data—holds the potential for unprecedented generalization across tasks, modalities, and experimental contexts, ultimately leading to more robust and versatile artifact cleaning solutions [25].

A central challenge in modern electrophysiology is the frequency overlap between authentic neural signals and non-neural artifacts. This spectral entanglement makes distinguishing brain activity from contaminants particularly difficult using traditional filtering methods [42] [2]. Artifacts such as muscle activity (EMG) and ocular movements (EOG) exhibit spectral components that extensively overlap with key brain rhythm frequencies, obscuring genuine neural correlates and complicinating data interpretation for both basic research and clinical applications [2]. This overlap problem is especially pronounced in real-world recording environments where multiple artifact types coexist, creating a complex denoising scenario that requires sophisticated solutions beyond conventional approaches.

The limitations of traditional artifact removal techniques have prompted a shift toward deep learning solutions. Methods like regression, filtering, and blind source separation (BSS) often require manual intervention, reference channels, or make assumptions that don't hold in practical scenarios with multi-channel data and unknown artifacts [42]. End-to-end deep learning networks represent a paradigm shift in this domain, offering the potential for automated, adaptive artifact removal that can handle the complex, non-stationary nature of neural recordings. Within this context, CLEnet emerges as a significant advancement specifically designed to address the dual challenges of frequency overlap and multi-channel artifact removal through its novel dual-scale feature extraction architecture [42].

CLEnet Architecture: Advanced Feature Extraction for Artifact Removal

CLEnet represents a sophisticated neural network architecture that integrates multiple specialized components to address the complex challenge of artifact removal in electroencephalography (EEG) signals. The network's design specifically targets both morphological and temporal features of EEG data through a structured pipeline consisting of three dedicated processing stages [42].

The network employs a dual-branch structure that combines convolutional neural networks (CNN) with long short-term memory (LSTM) networks, augmented with an improved one-dimensional efficient multi-scale attention mechanism (EMA-1D) [42]. This integrated approach enables the model to capture both spatial and temporal characteristics of EEG signals simultaneously, which is crucial for effectively separating neural activity from various artifact types.

The network operates through three defined processing stages:

• Morphological feature extraction and temporal feature enhancement using dual-scale convolutional kernels and EMA-1D
• Temporal feature extraction employing LSTM networks to capture long-range dependencies
• EEG reconstruction where cleaned signals are reconstructed from the processed features [42]

Dual-Scale Feature Extraction Mechanism

CLEnet's innovative dual-scale convolutional approach utilizes two convolutional kernels of different scales to identify and extract morphological features at different resolutions [42]. This multi-scale analysis allows the network to capture both local and global patterns in the EEG data, making it particularly effective for handling artifacts of varying durations and morphologies.

The integration of the EMA-1D module represents a significant advancement in preserving temporal relationships while extracting spatial features. Inspired by Efficient Multi-Scale Attention applied to two-dimensional images, the one-dimensional adaptation captures pixel-level relationships through cross-dimensional interactions [42]. This attention mechanism helps the network focus on relevant features while suppressing artifactual components, enhancing the overall artifact removal capability without disrupting the inherent temporal structure of genuine neural signals.

Temporal Modeling and Signal Reconstruction

Following feature extraction, the network employs dimensionality reduction through fully connected layers to eliminate redundant information before processing by LSTM networks [42]. The LSTM components specialize in capturing long-range temporal dependencies in neural signals, which is essential for preserving the natural dynamics of brain activity during the artifact removal process.

The final reconstruction phase utilizes flattened features processed through fully connected layers to regenerate artifact-free EEG waveforms [42]. The entire network is trained in a supervised manner using mean squared error (MSE) as the loss function, optimizing the model to minimize distortion while effectively removing artifactual components.

Experimental Framework and Performance Benchmarking

The evaluation of CLEnet employed a comprehensive experimental design utilizing multiple datasets to validate its performance across different artifact types and recording conditions. This systematic approach enabled direct comparison with existing state-of-the-art methods and rigorous assessment of the network's capabilities [42].

Dataset Composition and Experimental Design

Researchers utilized three distinct datasets to evaluate CLEnet's performance under various scenarios:

• Dataset I: A semi-synthetic dataset formed by combining single-channel EEG with EMG and EOG artifacts from EEGdenoiseNet [42]
• Dataset II: A semi-synthetic dataset created by combining ECG data from the MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database with single-channel EEG from EEGdenoiseNet [42]
• Dataset III: Real 32-channel EEG data collected from healthy university students performing a 2-back task, containing unknown artifacts including vascular pulsation and swallowing artifacts [42]

This multi-dataset approach allowed researchers to evaluate CLEnet's performance on both controlled semi-synthetic data and challenging real-world recordings with unknown artifacts, providing a comprehensive assessment of its capabilities.

Performance Metrics and Evaluation Methodology

The performance of artifact removal techniques was quantified using four key metrics, each capturing different aspects of signal quality preservation and artifact removal efficacy:

• SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio): Measures the power ratio between neural signal and residual artifacts (higher values indicate better performance)
• CC (Correlation Coefficient): Quantifies the waveform similarity between cleaned and ground-truth signals (higher values indicate better preservation of original signal morphology)
• RRMSEt (Relative Root Mean Square Error in Temporal Domain): Assesses temporal waveform reconstruction accuracy (lower values indicate superior performance)
• RRMSEf (Relative Root Mean Square Error in Frequency Domain): Evaluates spectral content preservation (lower values indicate better performance) [42]

Table 1: Performance Comparison of CLEnet Against Baseline Models on Mixed (EMG+EOG) Artifact Removal

Model	SNR (dB)	CC	RRMSEt	RRMSEf
CLEnet	11.498	0.925	0.300	0.319
1D-ResCNN	10.152	0.891	0.355	0.358
NovelCNN	10.874	0.903	0.322	0.341
DuoCL	11.201	0.912	0.315	0.333

Table 2: CLEnet Performance on Multi-Channel EEG with Unknown Artifacts

Model	SNR (dB)	CC	RRMSEt	RRMSEf
CLEnet	--	--	--	--
DuoCL (Baseline)	--	--	--	--
Improvement	+2.45%	+2.65%	-6.94%	-3.30%

Comparative Analysis with State-of-the-Art Methods

When benchmarked against leading artifact removal models, CLEnet demonstrated superior performance across multiple artifact types. In the critical task of removing mixed artifacts (EMG + EOG), CLEnet achieved the highest SNR (11.498 dB) and CC (0.925), along with the lowest temporal and frequency domain errors (RRMSEt: 0.300, RRMSEf: 0.319) [42]. The network's advantage was particularly notable in handling ECG artifacts, where it outperformed DuoCL by 5.13% in SNR and reduced temporal error by 8.08% [42].

Perhaps most impressively, CLEnet maintained its performance advantage when applied to real-world multi-channel EEG data containing unknown artifacts. Compared to DuoCL, CLEnet achieved significant improvements across all metrics with SNR and CC increasing by 2.45% and 2.65% respectively, while RRMSEt and RRMSEf decreased by 6.94% and 3.30% [42]. This demonstrates the network's robustness and generalization capability in challenging real-world scenarios where artifact characteristics may not be fully known in advance.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Data Preparation and Preprocessing Protocols

The experimental methodology for validating CLEnet followed rigorous data preparation protocols. For semi-synthetic datasets (I and II), researchers employed a specific combination process where clean EEG signals were artificially contaminated with recorded artifact signals at controlled signal-to-noise ratios [42]. This approach enabled quantitative evaluation against known ground truth signals, which is essential for reliable performance metrics calculation.

For the real-world dataset (Dataset III), researchers collected 32-channel EEG data from healthy university students performing a 2-back working memory task [42]. This paradigm naturally elicits various artifacts including eye movements, muscle activity, and other physiological contaminants, providing an ecologically valid test scenario. The presence of unknown artifacts such as vascular pulsation and swallowing artifacts added to the practical challenge, better representing real-world clinical recording conditions.

Network Training and Implementation Details

CLEnet was implemented and trained following established deep learning practices for neural signal processing. The network was trained in a supervised manner using mean squared error (MSE) as the loss function to minimize differences between reconstructed and ground-truth signals [42]. The training procedure employed standard backpropagation with appropriate optimization algorithms to learn the parameters effectively.

The dual-scale CNN components were designed with specific kernel sizes to capture features at different temporal scales, while the LSTM layers were configured to model long-range dependencies in the neural signals [42]. The improved EMA-1D attention mechanism was carefully integrated to enhance temporal feature preservation without disrupting the spatial feature extraction process. This architectural balance was crucial to the network's superior performance compared to models that separate attention between temporal and morphological features, which can disrupt original temporal relationships [42].

Ablation Studies and Component Validation

To validate the contribution of individual architectural components, researchers conducted systematic ablation studies. By selectively removing key elements such as the EMA-1D module and evaluating performance degradation, they quantified the importance of each innovation to the overall system performance [42]. These experiments provided crucial insights into how each architectural contribution—dual-scale CNNs, LSTM integration, and attention mechanisms—collectively enabled CLEnet's advanced artifact removal capabilities.

The ablation studies confirmed that the complete integrated architecture performed significantly better than variants with missing components, demonstrating the synergistic relationship between the dual-scale feature extraction, temporal modeling, and attention mechanisms [42]. This systematic validation approach strengthens the evidence for CLEnet's architectural innovations and their role in advancing artifact removal performance.

Table 3: Key Research Resources for EEG Artifact Removal Research

Resource	Type	Function/Application
EEGdenoiseNet	Dataset	Provides standardized semi-synthetic EEG data with EMG/EOG artifacts for method benchmarking [42]
MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database	Dataset	Source of ECG artifact data for evaluating cardiac artifact removal techniques [42]
RELAX Pipeline	Software Tool	EEGLAB plugin for targeted artifact reduction minimizing effect size inflation [43]
Medtronic Percept DBS Device	Hardware	Enables continuous neural recording concurrently with stimulation therapy [44]
Stationary Wavelet Transform (SWT)	Algorithm	Technique for artifact detection and removal preserving neural signal components [12]
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	Algorithm	Blind source separation method for identifying and removing artifactual components [2] [45]

Signaling Pathways and System Workflows

CLEnet represents a significant advancement in neural signal processing through its innovative dual-scale architecture that effectively addresses the persistent challenge of frequency overlap between neural signals and artifacts. By integrating dual-scale CNNs, LSTM networks, and an improved EMA-1D attention mechanism, CLEnet demonstrates superior performance in removing diverse artifact types while preserving the integrity of underlying neural information [42]. The network's validated capability to handle multi-channel EEG data with unknown artifacts positions it as a valuable tool for real-world research and clinical applications where artifact characteristics may not be fully known in advance.

The development of CLEnet aligns with broader trends in electrophysiology research toward end-to-end deep learning solutions that overcome limitations of traditional artifact removal methods. As research continues, future developments will likely focus on enhancing computational efficiency for real-time applications, expanding capability to handle increasingly complex artifact types, and improving adaptability across diverse recording modalities and subject populations. These advancements will further strengthen the role of specialized deep learning architectures in unlocking the full potential of neural signal analysis for both basic neuroscience and clinical applications.

A central challenge in neuroscience research, particularly within the context of drug development and clinical neurophysiology, lies in the accurate separation of neural signals from non-neural artifacts. Electroencephalography (EEG) and other neuroimaging modalities are routinely contaminated by a range of artifacts originating from physiological sources (e.g., eye movements, cardiac activity, muscle contraction) and external instrumentation [46] [23]. The confounding influence of these artifacts is often addressed through signal processing techniques, with two predominant philosophies emerging: component subtraction and targeted reduction.

The core of the problem, and the focus of this thesis, is the significant frequency overlap between genuine neural signals and artifacts. For instance, ballistocardiogram (BCG) artifacts induced by cardiac activity in simultaneous EEG-fMRI recordings have most of their power contained below 25 Hz, directly overlapping with the delta, theta, and alpha bands of neuronal electrical interest [46]. Similarly, eye-blink artifacts (electrooculogram, or EOG) are most prominent in the 0.5-12 Hz range, obscuring crucial low-frequency EEG information [47]. This spectral overlap makes simple frequency-based filtering ineffective, as it indiscriminately removes both artifact and neural signal. The choice of artifact mitigation strategy therefore becomes critical, as imperfect methods can remove neural signals alongside artifacts, leading to the artificial inflation of effect sizes in event-related potentials, biased connectivity measures, and erroneous source localisation estimates [48]. This technical guide provides an in-depth examination of these two approaches, framing the discussion within the critical context of preserving neural signal integrity amidst widespread frequency overlap.

Core Methodologies: Mechanisms and Consequences

Component Subtraction: The Conventional Approach

Component subtraction refers to a class of techniques where the recorded signal is decomposed into constituent components, some of which are classified as artifactual and entirely removed before the signal is reconstructed.

• Independent Component Analysis (ICA): ICA is a blind source separation technique that decomposes multi-channel EEG data into statistically independent components [23] [48]. The underlying assumption is that artifacts and neural signals originate from statistically independent sources. Researchers manually or automatically identify components representing artifacts (e.g., those with frontal topography for eye blinks or high kurtosis for muscle artifacts) and subtract them from the signal.
• Average Artifact Subtraction (AAS): Commonly used for imaging artifacts in EEG-fMRI data, AAS involves averaging the EEG signal over several fMRI volume or slice periods to create a template of the periodic artifact. This template is then subtracted from the raw EEG signal [46]. This method assumes the artifact is stationary over time and that the neuronal signal is uncorrelated across the averaged epochs.

Targeted Reduction: A Precision Paradigm

Targeted reduction represents a more nuanced approach that aims to isolate and suppress only the artifactual portions of the signal, either in specific time periods, frequency bands, or within sub-sections of a decomposed component.

• Temporal-Targeting: This method involves cleaning artifacts only during the time periods in which they occur. For example, in the RELAX pipeline, artifact reduction is applied specifically to the periods of eye movement components rather than subtracting the entire component [48].
• Spectral-Targeting: This technique targets artifact energy in specific frequency bands. For instance, the RELAX method also applies cleaning to the artifact frequencies of muscle components, preserving neural activity in other frequency ranges [48].
• Advanced Decomposition and Filtering: For single-channel systems, methods like the Fixed Frequency Empirical Wavelet Transform (FF-EWT) integrated with a Generalized Moreau Envelope Total Variation (GMETV) filter can automatically decompose a signal, identify artifact-laden components using metrics like kurtosis and dispersion entropy, and then apply a targeted filter to remove only the artifact content [47].

Quantitative Comparison of Method Performance

The following table summarizes key performance differentiators between component subtraction and targeted reduction methods, as evidenced by recent research.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Artifact Removal Strategies

Feature	Component Subtraction	Targeted Reduction
Core Principle	Identifies and removes entire components deemed artifactual [48].	Targets artifact periods or frequencies within components [48] [47].
Neural Signal Preservation	Can remove neural signals due to imperfect separation, leading to loss of information [48].	Superior in preserving neural signals outside artifact domains [48] [47].
Impact on Effect Sizes	Can artificially inflate event-related potential and connectivity effect sizes [48].	Mitigates effect size inflation and minimizes source localisation biases [48].
Suitability for Frequency-Overlap Scenarios	Poor; struggles with spectrally overlapping artifacts like BCG and EOG [46] [48].	Good; designed to operate within specific spectral and temporal boundaries [48] [47].
Primary Risk	Over-cleaning and introduction of false positive effects [48].	Potential for incomplete artifact removal if targeting is inaccurate.

Experimental Protocols and Validation

To ensure the validity and reliability of findings in neural signal research, rigorous experimental protocols for artifact removal must be employed and their outcomes quantitatively validated.

Protocol: Evaluating Targeted Reduction for EEG

This protocol is adapted from studies that developed and tested the RELAX method on Go/No-go and N400 task data [48].

• Data Acquisition: Record EEG data using a high-density system (e.g., 64-channel) simultaneously with auxiliary recordings (e.g., EOG for eye blinks, EMG for muscle activity). For EEG-fMRI studies, record EEG inside the MRI scanner with a synchronized carbon-wire loop (CWL) system to capture reference artifacts [46].
• Preprocessing: Apply band-pass filtering (e.g., 0.5-70 Hz) and notch filtering (e.g., 50/60 Hz). Mark bad channels and interpolate them.
• Data Decomposition: Perform ICA on the continuous data to decompose it into independent components.
• Component Classification: Classify components using established algorithms (e.g., ICLabel) to identify those related to eye movements, muscle activity, and other artifacts.
• Targeted Cleaning (RELAX Method):
  • For eye movement components, apply cleaning only to the time periods marked by EOG activity.
  • For muscle components, apply cleaning targeted at the high-frequency bands characteristic of EMG artifacts.
  • Reconstruct the data using the modified components.
• Benchmark Comparison: Compare the results against a "ground truth" recording, which can be:
  • EEG recorded outside the MRI scanner [46].
  • The original data cleaned using a conventional full-component subtraction approach [48].

Protocol: Single-Channel EOG Removal with FF-EWT and GMETV

This protocol details the method for artifact removal in portable, single-channel EEG systems, as described by [47].

• Signal Decomposition: Use Fixed Frequency Empirical Wavelet Transform (FF-EWT) to decompose a contaminated single-channel EEG signal into six Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMFs).
• Artifact Component Identification: Automatically identify EOG-artifact-related IMFs by applying a feature threshold based on kurtosis (KS), dispersion entropy (DisEn), and power spectral density (PSD) metrics.
• Targeted Filtering: Apply a finely-tuned, four-stage cascaded Generalized Moreau Envelope Total Variation (GMETV) filter only to the identified artifact components to reduce the eyeblink event.
• Signal Reconstruction: Reconstruct the clean EEG signal from the processed IMFs.
• Validation: Validate the method's performance on both synthetic and real EEG datasets using metrics such as Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSE), Correlation Coefficient (CC), Signal-to-Artifact Ratio (SAR), and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) [47].

Quantitative Validation Metrics

The performance of artifact removal techniques is typically quantified using the following metrics, which should be reported to allow for cross-study comparisons.

Table 2: Key Metrics for Validating Artifact Removal

Metric	Description	Interpretation
Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSE)	Measures the difference between the cleaned signal and a known clean ground truth [47].	Lower values indicate better performance and higher fidelity.
Correlation Coefficient (CC)	Measures the linear correlation between the cleaned signal and the ground truth [47].	Values closer to 1 indicate the cleaned signal's morphology is better preserved.
Signal-to-Artifact Ratio (SAR)	Quantifies the power ratio of the desired neural signal to the residual artifact [47].	Higher values indicate more effective artifact suppression.
Oscillatory Spectral Contrast	Quantifies the change in oscillatory power (e.g., in alpha/beta bands) during a task versus rest after artifact cleaning [46].	Higher contrast indicates better preservation of neural oscillatory activity.

Visualization of Method Workflows

The fundamental differences in the workflow and decision logic between component subtraction and targeted reduction can be visualized in the following diagrams.

Diagram 1: Component Subtraction Workflow: This process involves a binary decision to keep or remove entire components.

Diagram 2: Targeted Reduction Workflow: This process applies selective reduction to specific temporal or spectral artifact domains.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

For researchers aiming to implement and validate these artifact removal strategies, the following tools and materials are essential.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Artifact Research

Item	Function in Research
High-Density EEG System (64+ channels)	Provides sufficient spatial information for effective decomposition using source separation techniques like ICA [23] [48].
Auxiliary Biosensor Array (EOG, EMG, ECG)	Provides ground truth recordings of physiological artifacts, enabling precise identification and targeted cleaning of artifact periods [48].
Carbon-Wire Loop (CWL) System	An affordable and straightforward reference system for capturing MR-induced artifacts during simultaneous EEG-fMRI, providing a pure artifact reference for superior reduction [46].
RELAX Pipeline (EEGLAB Plugin)	A freely available software tool that implements targeted artifact reduction methods, allowing researchers to apply these techniques to their own data [48].
Fixed Frequency EWT & GMETV Filter Algorithm	A specialized algorithm for automated, targeted removal of EOG artifacts in single-channel EEG recordings, crucial for portable healthcare applications [47].
Synthetic & Real Benchmark EEG Datasets	Datasets with known artifacts and/or clean ground truth signals are essential for validating the performance of new artifact removal methods [48] [47].

The choice between targeted reduction and component subtraction is not merely a technical preference but a fundamental decision that impacts the integrity of neural signal interpretation. The evidence strongly indicates that targeted reduction methods offer a superior approach for protecting neural signal integrity, especially in the presence of spectrally overlapping artifacts. By moving beyond the binary "keep or discard" logic of component subtraction, targeted methods mitigate the risks of effect size inflation and source localization bias, thereby enhancing the reliability and validity of EEG analyses [48]. For researchers in drug development and clinical neuroscience, where subtle neural effects are of critical importance, adopting these precision cleaning techniques is essential for ensuring that observed outcomes reflect genuine brain activity rather than procedural artifacts.

The integration of robust artifact removal pipelines into standard Electroencephalography (EEG) and Magnetoencephalography (MEG) processing workflows represents a critical frontier in computational neuroscience. The central challenge, which forms the thesis of this technical guide, is the fundamental frequency overlap between genuine neural signals and common artifacts. This spectral contamination necessitates advanced processing techniques that move beyond simple filtering, as physiological artifacts possess substantial energy within the traditional EEG frequency bands of interest (Delta: <4 Hz, Theta: 4-8 Hz, Alpha: 8-13 Hz, Beta: 13-30 Hz) [49] [2].

This spectral overlap makes clean separation exceptionally difficult. For instance, ocular artifacts (eye blinks and movements) manifest as high-amplitude, low-frequency deflections that dominate the delta and theta bands, potentially mimicking slow-wave cognitive or pathological activity [49] [2]. Similarly, muscle artifacts (EMG) introduce high-frequency, broadband noise that obscures beta and gamma oscillations, which are crucial for understanding active cognitive processing and motor commands [49] [50]. This guide provides an in-depth technical framework for implementing modern artifact removal pipelines that directly address this core issue of frequency overlap, enabling more reliable data interpretation for research and clinical applications, including drug development.

Artifact Typology and Spectral Characteristics

A precise understanding of artifact origins and their spectral signatures is the first step in designing an effective removal pipeline. Artifacts are broadly categorized into physiological (originating from the subject's body) and non-physiological (technical or external) sources [49] [2].

Table 1: Characteristics of Major Physiological Artifacts

Artifact Type	Biological Source	Spectral Footprint	Primary Impact on Neural Signals
Ocular (EOG)	Eye blinks and movements [49]	Delta, Theta bands (< 8 Hz) [2]	Masks slow-wave activity (e.g., deep sleep, cognitive effort) [49]
Muscle (EMG)	Head, jaw, neck muscle contractions [49]	Broadband, Beta/Gamma bands (> 13 Hz) [2]	Obscures high-frequency oscillations linked to motor function and cognition [50]
Cardiac (ECG/BCG)	Heartbeat (pulse/electrical activity) [49] [51]	~1.2 Hz, can spread to other bands [49]	Introduces rhythmic, pseudo-periodic waveforms; a major issue in simultaneous EEG-fMRI [51]

Non-physiological artifacts include electrode "pop" from impedance changes, cable movement, 50/60 Hz powerline interference, and subject motion, which can create large, non-linear noise bursts [2] [50]. The following diagram illustrates the frequency overlap problem and the general workflow for addressing it.

Diagram 1: Frequency overlap challenge and pipeline solution.

Traditional and Modern Artifact Removal Algorithms

A wide array of algorithms has been developed to tackle artifact removal, each with distinct mechanisms, advantages, and limitations. The choice of algorithm often depends on data characteristics (e.g., channel count) and the specific artifact targeted.

Classical Signal Processing Approaches

• Regression Methods: These are traditional techniques that use reference channels (e.g., EOG, ECG) to define amplitude relationships with EEG channels via transmission factors. The estimated artifact is then subtracted from the contaminated signal [49]. A key limitation is the assumption of bidirectional interference, where the reference channel itself may be contaminated by neural signals, potentially leading to the removal of cerebral activity [49].
• Blind Source Separation (BSS): This family of techniques, particularly Independent Component Analysis (ICA), has been the most widely used method for artifact removal [49]. ICA decomposes multi-channel EEG data into statistically independent components (ICs). Artifactual ICs are identified based on their temporal, spectral, and spatial patterns and are then removed before signal reconstruction [49] [52]. Its efficacy, however, depends on having a sufficient number of channels and is less reliable for low-density wearable EEG systems [23] [27].
• Wavelet Transform: This method is highly effective for non-stationary signals like EEG. It decomposes the signal into different frequency components at various time resolutions, allowing for the targeted removal of artifactual coefficients before reconstruction [49].

Deep Learning and Modern Frameworks

Recently, deep learning (DL) models have shown a transformative ability to learn complex features from EEG data, enabling automated, end-to-end artifact removal without the need for manual component inspection [53] [4].

• CLEnet: A novel dual-branch neural network that integrates dual-scale Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) for morphological feature extraction and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks for temporal feature modeling. An improved attention mechanism (EMA-1D) helps the network better separate EEG from artifacts. This architecture has demonstrated superior performance in removing mixed (EMG+EOG) artifacts, achieving a high correlation coefficient (CC) of 0.925 and low temporal relative root mean square error (RRMSEt) of 0.300 [53].
• Motion-Net: A subject-specific, CNN-based framework designed explicitly for removing motion artifacts in mobile EEG (mo-EEG). It incorporates visibility graph features to enhance model accuracy on smaller datasets. On a dataset with real-world motion artifacts, Motion-Net achieved an average artifact reduction of 86% and a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) improvement of 20 dB [50].
• Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs): Models like AnEEG and EEGNet use a GAN framework where a generator produces cleaned EEG signals, and a discriminator judges their quality against ground-truth, clean data. This adversarial training allows the model to learn to generate artifact-free signals while preserving underlying neural information [4].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Featured Deep Learning Models

Model Name	Architecture	Primary Target Artifacts	Key Performance Metrics
CLEnet [53]	CNN + LSTM + EMA-1D Attention	EMG, EOG, Mixed, Unknown	SNR: 11.498 dB, CC: 0.925, RRMSEt: 0.300 (on mixed artifacts)
Motion-Net [50]	1D U-Net CNN + Visibility Graph	Motion Artifacts	Artifact Reduction (η): 86% ±4.13, SNR Improvement: 20 ±4.47 dB
AnEEG [4]	GAN with LSTM	Muscle, Ocular, Environmental	Improved NMSE, RMSE, CC, SNR, and SAR over wavelet techniques

The following diagram illustrates the typical workflow of a deep learning-based artifact removal model.

Diagram 2: Deep learning artifact removal pipeline.

Implementation Protocols for Integrated Processing Workflows

Integrating these artifact removal techniques into a standard EEG/MEG pipeline requires careful sequencing of steps. Below is a detailed protocol for a robust, integrated workflow suitable for both research and clinical applications.

Protocol 1: Standard Multi-Method Integrated Pipeline

This protocol combines the strengths of preprocessing, BSS, and deep learning for high-density EEG data.

• Data Acquisition & Import

  • Acquire data with appropriate sample rates (≥200 Hz recommended). For mobile EEG, use synchronized accelerometer data to inform motion artifact removal [50].
  • Thesis Context: Document the amplifier specifications and electrode types (wet/dry) as this influences the nature and amplitude of technical artifacts.

• Preprocessing & Initial Filtering

  • Apply a bandpass filter (e.g., 1-35 Hz) to remove extreme low-frequency drifts and high-frequency noise outside the range of primary neural interest [52].
  • Use a notch filter (e.g., 50/60 Hz) to attenuate powerline interference.
  • Thesis Context: Acknowledge that this step may partially attenuate artifacts but is insufficient due to the core problem of frequency overlap.

• Bad Channel Identification & Interpolation

  • Detect channels with excessive noise, flat signals, or unusually high impedance using automated algorithms (e.g., based on signal variance or kurtosis). Remove or interpolate these channels.

• Artifact Removal via BSS (ICA)

  • Perform ICA decomposition (e.g., using FASTICA or Infomax algorithms) on the preprocessed data [52].
  • Identify and remove artifactual components. This can be done manually by an expert or using automated classifiers trained on artifact features (e.g., ICLabel, CORRMAP) [49].
  • Critical Consideration: This step is most effective with high-channel-count data. Its performance degrades with low-density wearable systems [23].

• Advanced Artifact Removal via Deep Learning

  • For persistent artifacts (especially muscle, motion, or complex mixed artifacts), apply a pre-trained deep learning model like CLEnet or Motion-Net [53] [50].
  • Experimental Protocol: For model training, use a framework like the one for CLEnet:
    • Input: Raw or preprocessed single or multi-channel EEG segments.
    • Training: Use a semi-synthetic dataset where clean EEG is artificially contaminated with recorded EOG/EMG, or a real dataset with paired clean and contaminated segments. The loss function is typically Mean Squared Error (MSE) between the model output and the clean ground truth [53] [4].
    • Output: The model generates a cleaned version of the input segment.

• Data Reformation & Epoch-ing

  • Re-reference the data to a common average or robust reference (e.g., REST).
  • Segment the continuous, cleaned data into epochs time-locked to experimental events.

Protocol 2: Specialized Pipeline for Simultaneous EEG-fMRI

Simultaneous EEG-fMRI presents unique artifacts like the Gradient Artifact (GRA) and Ballistocardiogram (BCG) artifact, which are orders of magnitude larger than EEG signals [51].

• Gradient Artifact (GRA) Removal

  • Method: Average Artifact Subtraction (AAS). This technique leverages the repetitiveness of the GRA, which is time-locked to the fMRI slice acquisition.
  • Procedure: Detect all GRA events, create a high-resolution template by averaging these events, and subtract the template from each occurrence. Upsampling the EEG signal prior to subtraction is often required for high-fidelity correction [51].

• BCG Artifact Removal

  • Method: Optimal Basis Set (OBS) combined with ICA (OBS+ICA).
  • Procedure: Using detected heartbeats (from an ECG channel), create a set of basis functions that capture the temporal variations of the BCG artifact. These are fitted and subtracted from the data. Subsequently, ICA is applied to remove any residual BCG-related components that the OBS method missed [51].

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Artifact Removal
EEGdenoiseNet [53]	Benchmark Dataset	Provides semi-synthetic datasets (EEG + EMG/EOG) for training and validating deep learning models.
FASTICA [52]	Algorithm / Code	A widely used implementation of Independent Component Analysis for blind source separation.
Visibility Graph Features [50]	Signal Feature	Converts 1D EEG time-series into graph structures, providing morphological features that improve DL model performance on small datasets.
SYNCHBOX [51]	Hardware	Synchronizes EEG and fMRI acquisition systems, crucial for mitigating gradient artifacts in simultaneous recordings.
Motion-Net Model [50]	Deep Learning Model	A pre-trained, subject-specific CNN model for removing motion artifacts in mobile EEG data.
EMEGFMRIArtifactPlugin [51]	Software Plugin	Implements AAS and OBS methods for GRA and BCG artifact removal in BrainVoyager software.

The effective integration of artifact removal into standard EEG/MEG workflows is not a one-size-fits-all process but a deliberate, context-dependent strategy. The persistent challenge of frequency overlap means that a single algorithm is rarely sufficient. A synergistic, multi-method pipeline that combines the spatial separation power of BSS for ocular and cardiac artifacts with the pattern recognition capabilities of modern deep learning for muscle and motion artifacts represents the current state-of-the-art. For clinical and translational research, including drug development, adopting these robust, automated pipelines is essential for ensuring that the analyzed signals accurately reflect underlying brain dynamics, thereby leading to more reliable biomarkers and conclusions.

Optimizing Pipelines and Mitigating Pitfalls in Real-World Applications

A central challenge in electroencephalography (EEG) analysis lies in the fundamental frequency overlap between genuine neural signals and physiological artifacts. This spectral entanglement creates an inherent risk of neural signal attenuation during artifact removal, a phenomenon where valuable neurophysiological information is inadvertently stripped away alongside contaminants. Ocular artifacts dominate low-frequency delta and theta bands, while muscle artifacts produce broadband noise that obscures beta and gamma rhythms essential for understanding cognitive and motor processes [2]. This overlap forces researchers to navigate a delicate balance between effective artifact suppression and preservation of neural integrity, making over-cleaning a pervasive yet often overlooked pitfall in both clinical and research settings.

The expansion of EEG into wearable devices and brain-computer interfaces has intensified these challenges. In mobile acquisition environments, artifacts exhibit specific features due to dry electrodes, reduced scalp coverage, and subject mobility, yet most processing pipelines rarely address the distinct spectral preservation requirements these conditions demand [23]. This technical guide examines the quantitative evidence of over-cleaning, outlines methodological frameworks for its mitigation, and provides experimental protocols to validate neural signal preservation throughout the artifact removal workflow.

Quantitative Evidence: Measuring Signal Attenuation Across Methods

Performance Trade-offs in Deep Learning Architectures

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Deep Learning Models in EEG Artifact Removal

Model Architecture	Primary Application	SNR Improvement (dB)	Correlation Coefficient (CC)	RRMSE (Temporal)	Risk of Neural Attenuation
Complex CNN [6]	tDCS Artifacts	Not Reported	Not Reported	Not Reported	Low for tDCS, higher for tACS/tRNS
M4 (SSM-based) [6]	tACS/tRNS Artifacts	Not Reported	Not Reported	Not Reported	Lowest for complex artifacts
CLEnet (Dual-scale CNN + LSTM) [42]	Multi-artifact Removal	11.498 (mixed artifacts)	0.925 (mixed artifacts)	0.300 (mixed artifacts)	Low (explicit temporal feature preservation)
GAN with LSTM [4]	General Denoising	Not Reported	Not Reported	Not Reported	Medium (dependent on discriminator training)
1D-ResCNN [42]	Single-type Artifacts	Lower than CLEnet	Lower than CLEnet	Higher than CLEnet	Higher (limited temporal context)

Domain-Specific Performance Metrics

Table 2: Signal Preservation Metrics Across Stimulation Modalities

Stimulation Type	Optimal Method	Spectral Distortion	Temporal Preservation	Key Limitation
tDCS [6]	Complex CNN	Minimal in delta/theta	High	Poor performance on oscillatory artifacts
tACS [6]	M4 (SSM-based)	Minimal at stimulus frequency	High	Computationally intensive
tRNS [6]	M4 (SSM-based)	Minimal across spectrum	High	Requires precise parameter tuning
Cochlear Implants [54]	Multichannel Wiener Filter	<2% power distortion	Moderate (phase alterations)	Requires reference stimulation signal

The quantitative evidence reveals that method performance is highly dependent on stimulation type and artifact characteristics [6]. No single approach universally excels across all domains, and the selection of suboptimal methods for specific artifact types represents a primary pathway to over-cleaning. For example, while Complex CNN performs optimally for tDCS artifacts, its application to tACS or tRNS scenarios would result in significant neural signal attenuation [6]. Similarly, models designed for specific artifacts like NovelCNN for EMG removal demonstrate performance degradation when applied to EOG contaminants [42], highlighting the need for artifact-specific method selection to prevent over-cleaning.

Methodological Approaches: Balancing Removal and Preservation

State Space Models for Oscillatory Artifacts

The multi-modular M4 model based on State Space Models (SSMs) has demonstrated particular efficacy for removing complex tACS and tRNS artifacts while minimizing neural signal attenuation [6]. SSMs excel in scenarios with frequency overlap because they model the underlying dynamics of both neural signals and artifacts in a continuous state space, allowing for more precise separation than methods relying solely on spectral filtering. This approach preserves phase relationships in neural oscillations critical for understanding network dynamics in resting-state and task-based paradigms.

Dual-Scale Feature Extraction with Attention Mechanisms

The CLEnet architecture integrates dual-scale CNN kernels with LSTM networks and an improved EMA-1D attention mechanism to simultaneously extract morphological and temporal features [42]. This multi-scale approach prevents over-cleaning by allowing the network to discriminate between artifact and neural components based on both immediate morphological characteristics and longer temporal contexts. The attention mechanism selectively enhances relevant temporal features, reducing the risk of discarding neurologically meaningful signals that share spectral properties with artifacts. In validation studies, CLEnet achieved a 2.45% improvement in SNR and 2.65% increase in CC compared to other models while reducing temporal and spectral errors by 6.94% and 3.30% respectively [42].

Reference-Based Artifact Prediction

The multichannel Wiener filter approach capitalizes on linear coupling between stimulation currents and recording artifacts to predict and subtract artifacts while preserving underlying neural activity [54]. This method estimates a transfer function between each stimulating-recording electrode pair, enabling precise artifact prediction that is subsequently subtracted from the recorded signal. Since the approach requires knowledge of stimulation timing and parameters, it achieves artifact reduction of 25-40 dB without the spectral distortion associated with blind filtering techniques [54]. This makes it particularly valuable in neural implant settings and electrical stimulation paradigms where stimulation parameters are known.

Diagram 1: Reference-Based Artifact Removal Workflow (Max Width: 760px)

Experimental Protocols for Validation

Semi-Synthetic Dataset Creation for Controlled Evaluation

Creating semi-synthetic datasets with known ground truth enables controlled and rigorous model evaluation, allowing researchers to precisely quantify signal preservation metrics [6]. The established protocol involves:

• Clean EEG Baseline Acquisition: Record high-quality EEG during resting state with minimal artifact contamination using shielded environments and instructed participant compliance (e.g., minimized eye movement and muscle activity).

• Artifact Signal Collection: Separately record artifact sources:

  • Ocular artifacts: Record EOG during directed eye movements and blinks
  • Muscle artifacts: Record EMG from temporal, neck, and frontal muscles during controlled contractions
  • Stimulation artifacts: Record artifacts during electrical stimulation protocols without neural responses [54]

• Linear Mixing with Known Ratios: Combine clean EEG with artifact signals at specific signal-to-noise ratios (typically -5 dB to 10 dB) using the formula: y(t) = x(t) + α·a(t) where y(t) is the contaminated signal, x(t) is the clean EEG, a(t) is the artifact signal, and α is the mixing coefficient determining artifact severity [42].

• Ground Truth Preservation: Maintain the original clean EEG as ground truth for quantitative comparison of denoising performance.

Multi-Metric Performance Validation Protocol

Comprehensive evaluation requires multiple metrics to assess both artifact removal efficacy and neural preservation:

• Temporal Domain Analysis:

  • Calculate Root Relative Mean Squared Error (RRMSE) between processed and clean EEG
  • Compute Correlation Coefficient (CC) to assess waveform preservation [6] [42]

• Spectral Domain Analysis:

  • Calculate RRMSE in frequency domain (RRMSEf) to quantify spectral distortion
  • Compare power spectral density before and after processing in key frequency bands (delta, theta, alpha, beta, gamma) [42]

• Signal Quality Metrics:

  • Compute Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) improvement
  • Calculate Signal-to-Artifact Ratio (SAR) to quantify residual contamination [4]

• Statistical Validation:

  • Perform paired statistical tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank) on feature extraction from original and processed signals
  • Validate preservation of event-related potentials (ERPs) or oscillatory dynamics in task-based paradigms

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Artifact Removal Research

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Key Considerations
EEGdenoiseNet Dataset [42]	Semi-synthetic benchmark with clean EEG, EMG, and EOG	Provides ground truth for controlled evaluation
MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database [42]	ECG artifact contamination studies	Enables cardiac artifact research
Custom Electrical Stimulators [54]	Generation of controlled stimulation artifacts	Enables precise artifact parameter control
Wiener Filter Implementation [54]	Reference-based artifact prediction	Requires known stimulation timing
Dry Electrode Arrays [23]	Wearable EEG acquisition	Introduces motion artifacts but enables mobile studies
Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) [23]	Motion artifact detection	Correlates movement with signal artifacts
CLEnet Architecture [42]	Dual-scale feature extraction	Balances temporal and morphological preservation

Diagram 2: Artifact Removal Decision Framework (Max Width: 760px)

The risk of neural signal attenuation during artifact removal remains a significant challenge in EEG analysis, particularly given the fundamental spectral overlap between brain signals and physiological artifacts. Addressing this challenge requires a nuanced approach that moves beyond one-size-fits-all denoising strategies toward precision methods tailored to specific artifact types and research contexts. The methodologies outlined in this guide—from state space models optimized for specific stimulation artifacts to dual-scale neural networks with attention mechanisms—provide pathways to minimize over-cleaning while maintaining effective artifact suppression.

Future advances in artifact removal must prioritize the validation of neural signal preservation alongside traditional metrics of artifact reduction. This requires standardized benchmarking using semi-synthetic datasets with known ground truth, multi-metric evaluation frameworks, and explicit reporting of both removal efficacy and potential signal loss. As EEG applications expand into wearable devices and real-time brain-computer interfaces, developing artifact removal techniques that preserve the integrity of neural signatures will be essential for advancing both basic neuroscience and clinical applications.

In neuroscience and clinical diagnostics, electroencephalography (EEG) serves as a crucial instrument for capturing the brain's electrical activity with exceptional temporal resolution. However, the recorded signal is persistently contaminated by a range of non-neural artifacts originating from both biological sources (such as eye movements, muscle activity, and cardiac rhythms) and environmental sources (including powerline interference and electrode movement) [4]. The fundamental challenge in EEG preprocessing stems from the significant frequency overlap between genuine neural signals and these artifacts. Neural signals of interest typically fall within the 1-100 Hz range, while key artifacts like eye blinks (below 4 Hz) and muscular activity (above 13 Hz) occupy these same frequency bands [4]. This spectral overlap renders simple frequency filtering ineffective, as it indiscriminately removes both artifactual and neural information.

A common and seemingly intuitive approach to this problem has been the use of blind source separation techniques, such as Independent Component Analysis (ICA), to decompose data into components, subtract those identified as artifactual, and then reconstruct the data in electrode space [48] [43]. However, a counterintuitive and critically important finding has emerged: due to the imperfect separation of components inherent in these methods, this common practice does not merely remove neural signals alongside artifacts—it can artificially inflate event-related potential (ERP) and connectivity effect sizes and introduce significant biases in source localization estimates [48] [43]. This phenomenon poses a substantial threat to the validity of EEG research findings, particularly in fields like drug development where accurate effect size measurement is paramount. This whitepaper explores the mechanisms of this inflation effect, evaluates current and emerging methodologies for its mitigation, and provides detailed protocols for enhancing the reliability of EEG analyses.

The Mechanism of Effect Size Inflation

The Pitfalls of Standard ICA-Based Cleaning

The standard ICA-based cleaning process operates on the assumption that neural and artifactual sources can be perfectly separated into statistically independent components. In practice, this ideal is rarely achieved. Biological artifacts like eye movements and muscle activity generate electrical potentials that spread across the scalp and mix with underlying neural signals in a complex, non-stationary manner. When a component is classified as artifactual and subtracted, it often contains a non-trivial proportion of neural signal. This removal of neural signal creates a systematic bias rather than random noise.

The consequence is twofold. First, there is a direct loss of neural information, potentially obscuring genuine physiological effects. Second, and more insidiously, the selective removal of signal can distort the waveform morphology and amplitude of ERPs. This distortion occurs because the neural data mixed into artifactual components is not random; it is often phase-locked to events or tasks in a way that systematically alters the mean amplitude difference between conditions. For example, in a Go/No-go task, if neural activity related to response inhibition is partially embedded in a component also containing eye movement artifact, subtracting that component could differentially reduce the No-go condition's amplitude, thereby inflating the observed difference between Go and No-go ERPs [48]. This leads to false positive effects and overestimation of a treatment's or intervention's impact.

The Frequency Overlap Problem

The core of the problem lies in the shared frequency domain of signals and artifacts. The following table summarizes the key frequency bands and their vulnerability to contamination:

Table 1: Frequency Overlap Between Neural Signals and Common Artifacts

EEG Frequency Band	Neural Functions	Common Overlapping Artifacts	Impact of Imperfect Removal
Delta (1-4 Hz)	Deep sleep, infant EEG	Eye movements (saccades), slow drifts	Loss of slow-wave activity; inflated baseline shifts
Theta (4-8 Hz)	Drowsiness, meditation	Eye blinks	Theta power reduction; altered cognitive task ERPs
Alpha (8-13 Hz)	Relaxed wakefulness	Muscle tension (low-frequency EMG)	Distorted alpha oscillations and ERD/ERS patterns
Beta (13-30 Hz)	Active thinking, motor activity	Muscle activity (EMG)	Attenuated beta power; biased motor-related potentials
Gamma (>30 Hz)	Sensory binding, cognition	Muscle activity (EMG), powerline noise	Gamma oscillation suppression; false negative findings

As illustrated, the ubiquitous nature of this overlap makes traditional filtering or component rejection a high-risk operation. The heterogeneous distribution of different artifacts in the time-frequency domain further complicates the creation of a unified denoising model [55]. Ocular artifacts (EOG) primarily manifest as large-amplitude, low-frequency deflections, while muscle artifacts (EMG) appear as high-frequency noise across a broad spectrum [55]. A one-size-fits-all cleaning approach is fundamentally ill-suited to this multi-faceted problem.

Evaluating Modern Cleaning Methodologies

Targeted Cleaning and Advanced Decomposition

In response to the limitations of blanket component subtraction, Bailey et al. (2025) developed a novel targeted artifact reduction method. Instead of removing entire components deemed artifactual, their method precisely targets cleaning to specific periods or frequencies within components. For instance, for eye movement components, cleaning is applied only to the time periods where the artifact occurs. For muscle components, which have distinct spectral properties, cleaning is targeted to the specific frequencies contaminated by the artifact [48] [43].

This approach was tested across different EEG systems and cognitive tasks, including Go/No-go and N400 paradigms. The results demonstrated that targeted cleaning was effective in removing artifacts while also protecting against the artificial inflation of effect sizes and minimizing source localization biases that result from subtracting entire artifact components [48]. The authors have provided this method in the freely available RELAX pipeline, an EEGLAB plugin, making it accessible to the broader research community [48].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of EEG Artifact Removal Methods

Method	Core Principle	Reported Performance Metric	Key Advantage	Key Limitation
Standard ICA Subtraction [48]	Subtraction of entire artifactual components	Artificially inflates ERP effect sizes	Intuitive; widely implemented	Removes neural signal; causes bias
Targeted Cleaning (RELAX) [48]	Targets artifact periods/frequencies within components	Reduces effect size inflation & source bias	Preserves neural signal; mitigates inflation	-
AnEEG (LSTM-GAN) [4]	LSTM-based GAN to generate artifact-free EEG	Lower NMSE & RMSE; Higher CC, SNR & SAR vs. wavelet	Effective for complex, non-stationary artifacts	Requires large, diverse training datasets
A²DM [55]	Fuses artifact representation into time-frequency denoising	12% improvement in Correlation Coefficient vs. NovelCNN	Unified model for multiple interleaved artifacts	Complex architecture; computationally intensive
Deep Lightweight CNN [56]	Specialized CNNs for specific artifact classes	F1-score improvements of +11.2% to +44.9% vs. rule-based	High accuracy; artifact-specific optimal window sizes	Requires training multiple specialized models

The Rise of Deep Learning Approaches

Deep learning models have recently shown remarkable promise in addressing the artifact removal challenge by learning complex, non-linear relationships directly from data without relying on rigid assumptions of source independence.

The AnEEG model, proposed in 2024, leverages a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) architecture with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) layers. This design allows the model to capture temporal dependencies in EEG data. The generator learns to transform noisy EEG input into a clean output, while the discriminator judges the quality against ground-truth, clean signals. This adversarial process results in a model capable of effective denoising, outperforming traditional methods like wavelet decomposition on quantitative metrics such as Normalized Mean Square Error (NMSE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Correlation Coefficient (CC), Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), and Signal-to-Artifact Ratio (SAR) [4].

Another advanced framework, the Artifact-Aware Denoising Model (A²DM), tackles the difficult problem of removing multiple, interleaved artifacts simultaneously. A²DM first uses a pre-trained artifact classification model to obtain an artifact representation—a prior knowledge of the artifact type present in the signal. This representation is then fused into a denoising model operating in the time-frequency domain. A key innovation is its Frequency Enhancement Module (FEM), which uses a hard attention mechanism to selectively remove artifact-specific frequency components based on their identified type. To compensate for potential information loss from this aggressive filtering, a Time-domain Compensation Module (TCM) is incorporated [55]. This unified approach demonstrated a notable 12% improvement in correlation coefficient metrics compared to a leading baseline method (NovelCNN) [55].

Finally, Nyanney et al. (2025) demonstrated the power of specialization, developing distinct deep lightweight Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for detecting eye movement, muscle, and non-physiological artifacts. Critically, their work revealed that each artifact type has a distinct optimal temporal window size for detection (20s for eye movements, 5s for muscle, 1s for non-physiological), a finding that underscores the limitation of single-model approaches. These specialized CNNs significantly outperformed standard rule-based methods, with F1-score improvements ranging from +11.2% to +44.9% [56].

Experimental Protocols for Validating Cleaning Efficacy

For researchers aiming to implement or validate these methods, the following detailed protocols, drawn from the cited studies, provide a robust framework.

Protocol for Targeted Cleaning Validation (Based on RELAX)

Objective: To compare the effect of targeted artifact reduction versus full component subtraction on ERP effect sizes and source localization.

Materials:

• EEG data from a task paradigm with known ERP components (e.g., Go/No-go for N2/P3, or semantic processing for N400).
• EEGLAB with the RELAX plugin installed (https://github.com/NeilwBailey/RELAX) [48].

Method:

• Preprocessing: Apply standard preprocessing: high-pass filter (e.g., 1 Hz), low-pass filter (e.g., 40-70 Hz), notch filter (50/60 Hz), and bad channel interpolation.
• ICA Decomposition: Run ICA (e.g., using the runica algorithm) on the filtered, continuous data.
• Component Classification: Use the ICLabel classifier or similar to automatically label components as brain vs. artifact.
• Group A (Standard Subtraction):
  • Create a copy of the dataset.
  • Subtract all components classified as major artifacts (e.g., "Eye," "Muscle," "Heart").
  • Reconstruct the data and epoch according to the task.
• Group B (Targeted Cleaning):
  • On the original dataset, apply the RELAX pipeline.
  • The pipeline will automatically apply its targeted cleaning to artifact periods in eye components and artifact frequencies in muscle components.
  • Epoch the cleaned data.
• Analysis:
  • ERP Analysis: Calculate the mean amplitude and peak latency for key components (e.g., N400, P3) in each condition and group.
  • Effect Size Calculation: Compute the condition difference (e.g., No-go minus Go for P3) for both groups. Compare the magnitude of these effect sizes.
  • Source Localization: Perform source localization (e.g., using sLORETA) on the ERP components from both groups. Compare the resulting activation maps.

Expected Outcome: The group processed with standard subtraction (Group A) is expected to show larger ERP effect sizes and potentially distorted source localization maps compared to the group processed with targeted cleaning (Group B), which should yield more physiologically plausible and reliable results [48].

Protocol for Deep Learning Model Evaluation (Based on A²DM/AnEEG)

Objective: To train and evaluate a deep learning model for removing multiple interleaved artifacts.

Materials:

• Publicly available dataset with clean and artifact-contaminated EEG, or semi-simulated data where artifacts are added to clean segments (e.g., EEGdenoiseNet [55]).
• Python deep learning framework (e.g., PyTorch, TensorFlow).

Method:

• Data Preparation:
  • Standardize sampling rates (e.g., to 250 Hz) and channel montages.
  • Apply bandpass (e.g., 1-40 Hz) and notch (50/60 Hz) filtering.
  • For semi-simulated data, linearly mix clean EEG with recorded EOG and EMG artifacts at varying signal-to-noise ratios.
  • Segment data into epochs (e.g., 1-5 seconds).
• Model Implementation:
  • Implement the model architecture (e.g., A²DM's fusion of artifact representation and denoising blocks, or AnEEG's LSTM-GAN).
  • For A²DM, pre-train an Artifact-Aware Module (AAM) to classify artifact types and generate artifact representations [55].
• Training:
  • Split data into training, validation, and test sets.
  • Use loss functions that combine adversarial loss (for GANs) and signal fidelity terms like Mean Squared Error (MSE).
  • Train the model to map from noisy input (EEG_noisy) to clean output (EEG_clean).
• Evaluation:
  • Apply the trained model to the held-out test set.
  • Calculate quantitative metrics comparing the denoised output to the ground-truth clean signal:
    • Correlation Coefficient (CC): Measures linear relationship.
    • Signal-to-Artifact Ratio (SAR): Measures artifact suppression.
    • Root Mean Square Error (RMSE): Measures overall difference.

Expected Outcome: A well-trained model should achieve higher CC and SAR, and lower RMSE, than traditional methods, effectively removing artifacts while preserving the underlying neural signal [4] [55].

Table 3: Key Software and Data Resources for Advanced EEG Cleaning

Resource Name	Type	Function/Benefit	Access/Reference
RELAX Pipeline	Software Plugin	Implements targeted artifact reduction to mitigate effect size inflation.	EEGLAB plugin: https://github.com/NeilwBailey/RELAX [48]
EEGdenoiseNet	Benchmark Dataset	Provides a standardized dataset with clean EEG and recorded artifacts for training & evaluating denoising models.	[55]
TUH EEG Artifact Corpus	Annotated Dataset	A large corpus of clinical EEG with expert-annotated artifact labels, ideal for training detection models.	Temple University Hospital Corpus [56]
ICLabel	Software Classifier	Automated EEG ICA component classifier; critical for initial component labeling before targeted cleaning.	EEGLAB plugin
A²DM Code	Software Framework	Reference implementation for artifact-aware, unified denoising model.	Associated with [55] (Check SpringerLink for code availability)
Deep Lightweight CNN Models	Software Framework	Open-source specialized CNN models for eye, muscle, and non-physiological artifact detection.	Associated with [56] (Check medRxiv for code availability)

Diagrammatic Workflows

Targeted vs. Standard Cleaning Workflow

A²DM Unified Denoising Architecture

The evidence is clear: imperfect EEG cleaning, particularly the widespread practice of subtracting entire ICA components, is not a benign preprocessing step but a significant source of bias that can artificially inflate effect sizes and compromise the validity of neuroscientific and clinical findings. The frequency overlap between neural signals and artifacts makes this a fundamental, unavoidable challenge.

The path forward lies in adopting more nuanced, targeted, and informed methodologies. The emerging generation of techniques—from the targeted cleaning in the RELAX pipeline to the sophisticated deep learning models like A²DM and specialized CNNs—demonstrates a principled shift towards methods that respect the complex structure of the EEG signal. These methods leverage prior knowledge of artifact characteristics, operate on specific temporal or spectral features, and are validated against the crucial metric of neural signal preservation, not just artifact removal.

For the research community, especially in critical fields like drug development where accurate effect size measurement is essential, the imperative is to move beyond convenient but flawed cleaning practices. Integrating these advanced protocols and validation frameworks into standard analytical pipelines is no longer a question of optimization but of scientific rigor. By doing so, researchers can ensure that the effects they report are genuine reflections of brain activity, not mere byproducts of inadequate preprocessing.

Strategies for Wearable and Low-Density EEG Systems with Limited Channels

The advancement of wearable electroencephalography (EEG) technology represents a paradigm shift in neurophysiological monitoring, enabling brain activity recording in real-world environments beyond traditional clinical settings [57] [23]. These portable systems typically feature low-density electrode configurations (often ≤16 channels) and utilize dry electrode technology for rapid setup without conductive gel, significantly improving user mobility and comfort [57] [23]. However, this relaxed acquisition setup compromises signal quality through increased vulnerability to non-neural artifacts including ocular movements, muscle activity, and motion-related interference [23]. The core challenge lies in the frequency overlap between genuine neural signals and artifacts, particularly in the spectral range below 30 Hz where critical brain rhythms (delta, theta, alpha) coincide with common artifact frequencies [4] [23]. This technical guide comprehensively addresses artifact management strategies specifically optimized for the constraints of low-density wearable EEG systems, providing researchers with validated methodologies to enhance data reliability for both clinical and research applications.

Technical Challenges in Low-Density Wearable EEG

Fundamental Limitations and Artifact Vulnerability

Wearable EEG systems with limited channels present unique signal processing challenges that differentiate them from traditional high-density laboratory setups. The reduced spatial sampling inherent in low-density configurations severely limits the effectiveness of conventional artifact rejection techniques that rely on multi-channel spatial information, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Independent Component Analysis (ICA) [23]. Furthermore, the absence of conductive gel in dry electrode systems results in higher and more unstable electrode-skin impedance, increasing susceptibility to motion artifacts and environmental noise [23]. Operation in uncontrolled environments exposes recordings to electromagnetic interference and movement artifacts not encountered in shielded laboratory settings, while the limited electrode count restricts the ability to interpolate or discount contaminated channels without significant information loss [23].

Table 1: Key Challenges in Wearable Low-Density EEG Systems

Challenge Category	Specific Limitations	Impact on Signal Quality
Hardware Constraints	Dry electrodes, Limited channels (<16), Wireless transmission	Higher impedance, Reduced spatial resolution, Increased noise
Environmental Factors	Uncontrolled settings, Subject mobility, Electromagnetic interference	Motion artifacts, Environmental noise, Reduced SNR
Signal Processing	Limited spatial information, Reduced source localization accuracy	Constrained artifact removal efficacy
Physiological Artifacts	Ocular movements, Muscle activity, Cardiac rhythms	Frequency overlap with neural signals

Frequency Overlap Between Neural Signals and Artifacts

The spectral characteristics of common artifacts create significant analytical challenges due to their overlap with neurologically relevant frequency bands. Ocular artifacts (blinks and eye movements) typically manifest in the delta (0.5-4 Hz) and theta (4-8 Hz) ranges, directly overlapping with slow cortical potentials [4]. Muscle artifacts from jaw clenching, head movement, or neck tension produce broadband high-frequency activity above 20 Hz, contaminating the beta (13-30 Hz) and gamma (>30 Hz) bands crucial for studying cognitive processes [48] [4]. Cardiac artifacts from pulse propagation appear as periodic 1-1.5 Hz oscillations, interfering with delta band analysis [23]. This frequency domain overlap complicates the use of simple spectral filtering, as removing artifact components inevitably eliminates neurologically meaningful information, necessitating more sophisticated separation approaches.

Core Technical Strategies for Artifact Management

Targeted Artifact Reduction Methodologies

Conventional artifact removal approaches often apply broad component subtraction that inadvertently eliminates neural signals along with artifacts. Recent research demonstrates that indiscriminate component subtraction can artificially inflate event-related potential effect sizes and bias source localization estimates [48] [43]. The RELAX pipeline exemplifies a targeted methodology that specifically focuses cleaning on artifact periods of eye movement components and artifact frequencies of muscle components, preserving neural signals while effectively reducing contaminants [48] [43]. This targeted approach has shown significant improvements in maintaining signal integrity across different EEG systems and cognitive tasks, including Go/No-go and N400 paradigms [43].

Time-Frequency Domain Machine Learning

For wearable EEG data collected during physical activities, time-frequency analysis coupled with machine learning provides a powerful artifact management approach. The Gaussian window-based Stockwell transform (GWST) offers superior time-frequency localization compared to traditional Short-Time Fourier Transform or Continuous Wavelet Transform for non-stationary EEG signals [58]. Following time-frequency transformation, feature extraction using L1-norm and Shannon entropy from the time-frequency matrix enables effective discrimination between neural signals and artifacts [58]. Implementation of random forest classifiers on these features has demonstrated 90.74% accuracy in detecting epilepsy using wearable EEG signals recorded during various physical activities, significantly outperforming conventional methods [58].

Deep Learning Architectures for End-to-End Processing

Deep learning approaches represent the cutting edge of artifact management, with several specialized architectures showing particular promise for low-density EEG systems:

AnEEG: This LSTM-based Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) model specifically targets artifact removal through an adversarial learning framework where a generator produces denoised signals while a discriminator evaluates their authenticity against clean EEG references [4]. Quantitative metrics demonstrate its superiority over conventional methods, with lower Normalized Mean Square Error (NMSE) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values, higher correlation coefficients (CC), and improved Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and Signal-to-Artifact Ratio (SAR) [4].

GCTNet: Integrating transformer networks with GAN-guided parallel CNNs, this architecture captures both global and temporal dependencies in EEG signals, with the discriminator identifying holistic discrepancies between clean and denoised outputs [4]. The approach has demonstrated 11.15% reduction in relative root mean square error and 9.81% improvement in SNR compared to existing methods [4].

EEGENet: Specifically designed for ocular artifact removal, this GAN-based framework operates effectively under various eye movement conditions (no movement, vertical movement, horizontal movement, and blinking) [4].

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Advanced Artifact Removal Methods

Method	NMSE	RMSE	Correlation Coefficient	SNR Improvement	SAR Improvement
AnEEG (LSTM-GAN)	Lower values	Lower values	>0.89	Significant improvement	Significant improvement
GCTNet	-11.15% (RRMSE)	-	-	+9.81%	-
Targeted Cleaning (RELAX)	-	-	-	-	-
Wavelet Decomposition	Higher values	Higher values	<0.85	Moderate improvement	Moderate improvement

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol for Time-Frequency Machine Learning Implementation

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing:

• Utilize wearable EEG devices (e.g., Neurosky MindWave 2.0) with single-channel or low-density configurations [58]
• Record signals during various physical activities (desk work, walking, jogging, running) to capture real-world artifact scenarios [58]
• Apply bandpass filtering (0.5-70 Hz) and notch filtering (50/60 Hz) to remove baseline drift and powerline interference [58]
• Segment data into uniform epochs (e.g., 5-second windows) for subsequent analysis

Feature Extraction and Model Training:

• Compute Gaussian window-based Stockwell transform for each epoch to generate time-frequency representations [58]
• Extract L1-norm and Shannon entropy features from the time-frequency matrix [58]
• Implement random forest classifier with hold-out validation or k-fold cross-validation (k=10) [58]
• Optimize hyperparameters through grid search focusing on tree depth, number of estimators, and feature subset size

Deep Learning Pipeline for Artifact Removal

Data Preparation for Deep Learning:

• Utilize publicly available datasets containing clean and artifact-contaminated EEG pairs (e.g., EEG DenoiseNet, EEG Eye Artefact Dataset) [4]
• For semi-simulated data, linearly mix clean EEG segments with recorded EOG and EMG artifacts at varying signal-to-noise ratios [4]
• Normalize signals using energy threshold-based normalization and identify anomalous segments using sample entropy [4]

Model Architecture and Training:

• Implement generator with two-layer LSTM architecture (50 units per layer) for temporal dependency capture [4]
• Design discriminator as a four-layer 1D convolutional neural network with sigmoid output for clean/dirty classification [4]
• Employ novel loss functions combining time-domain mean-squared error and spectral distance metrics [4]
• Train with adversarial objective where generator aims to produce artifact-free signals that fool the discriminator

Diagram 1: Time-Frequency Machine Learning Workflow for Artifact Detection

Visualization of Methodological Approaches

Targeted Artifact Reduction Workflow

The RELAX pipeline implements a sophisticated approach to artifact management that specifically targets contaminating components while preserving neural signals, addressing the limitations of conventional broad component subtraction methods.

Diagram 2: Targeted Artifact Reduction Pipeline

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Wearable EEG Artifact Management

Tool Category	Specific Solutions	Function & Application
Software Libraries	RELAX EEGLAB Plugin, Python MNE, TensorFlow EEG	Preprocessing pipelines, artifact removal algorithms, deep learning implementations
Public Datasets	EEG DenoiseNet, EEG Eye Artefact Dataset, PhysioNet Motor/Imagery Dataset	Benchmarking artifact removal methods, Training deep learning models
Wearable Platforms	Neurosky MindWave, Emotiv EPOC, Muse Headband	Real-world data acquisition, Validation of low-density approaches
Analysis Metrics	NMSE, RMSE, Correlation Coefficient, SNR, SAR	Quantitative performance assessment of artifact removal efficacy
Reference Algorithms	Targeted cleaning (RELAX), GWST-Random Forest, AnEEG (LSTM-GAN)	Baseline comparisons, Methodological references

Effective artifact management in wearable low-density EEG systems requires specialized approaches that address the unique constraints of limited channels, dry electrodes, and real-world operating environments. The frequency overlap between neural signals and artifacts necessitates sophisticated separation techniques that move beyond simple filtering or component rejection. The strategies presented in this guide—targeted artifact reduction, time-frequency machine learning, and advanced deep learning architectures—provide researchers with validated methodologies to enhance signal quality while preserving neurologically meaningful information. As wearable EEG technology continues to evolve toward broader clinical and consumer applications, these artifact management strategies will play an increasingly critical role in ensuring data reliability and analytical validity across diverse implementation scenarios.

A central challenge in neuroscience research and neuro-pharmaceutical development is the accurate isolation of neural signals from non-neural artifacts, a problem compounded by significant spectral overlap between target brain activity and contaminating signals. Physiological artifacts such as eye movements (EOG), muscle activity (EMG), and cardiac rhythms (ECG) occupy frequency bands that substantially overlap with crucial neural oscillations, making traditional filtering approaches ineffective. This overlap obscures genuine brain activity and introduces confounding variables in clinical trials and neurophysiological assessments. To address this fundamental problem, researchers are increasingly turning to multi-sensor frameworks that leverage auxiliary sensors, including Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) and dedicated EOG/ECG reference channels, to directly measure and subsequently remove these artifacts. This technical guide examines the operational principles, methodological integration, and empirical validation of these auxiliary sensing technologies within the specific context of overcoming frequency domain limitations in neural signal analysis.

Theoretical Foundations: The Spectral Overlap Problem

The core rationale for employing auxiliary sensors lies in the intractable spectral overlap between artifacts and neural signals of interest. The following table quantifies this overlap across key physiological sources:

Table 1: Frequency Overlap Between Neural Signals and Common Artifacts

Signal Type	Primary Frequency Range	Overlapping Neural Oscillations	Impact on Neural Data
EOG (Eye Blinks/Movements)	0 - 15 Hz [53]	Delta (1-4 Hz), Theta (4-8 Hz)	Obscures slow cortical potentials and cognitive rhythms [23]
EMG (Muscle Activity)	10 - 500 Hz [59]	Beta (12-30 Hz), Gamma (>30 Hz)	Contaminates high-frequency neural activity associated with motor function and cognition [23] [53]
ECG (Cardiac Activity)	0.5 - 40 Hz [53]	Delta, Theta, Alpha (8-12 Hz)	Introduces periodic, wide-spectrum interference [53]
Motion Artifacts	0 - 20 Hz [60]	Delta, Theta	Masks low-frequency brain dynamics and connectivity measures [23]

This spectral confounding necessitates methods that leverage additional information beyond simple frequency filtering. Auxiliary sensors provide critical reference signals that capture the temporal profile of the artifact source, enabling sophisticated subtraction and regression techniques that can isolate and remove the artifactual component even when it resides in the same frequency band as the neural signal.

Auxiliary Sensor Architectures and Operational Principles

Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) for Motion Artifact Characterization

IMUs, typically comprising accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers, provide quantitative kinematic data that directly correlates with motion-induced artifacts in neural recordings. Their utility is particularly pronounced in wearable systems and real-world monitoring scenarios where subject movement is unavoidable.

• Mechanoacoustic Sensing: High-bandwidth triaxial accelerometers can capture subtle vibrations (from ~10⁻³ m·s⁻²) to gross body motions (~10 m·s⁻²) at frequencies up to ~800 Hz [60]. When placed at optimal anatomical locations like the suprasternal notch, these sensors can detect mechanoacoustic signatures of physiological processes including locomotion, respiration, swallowing, and vocal-fold vibrations, all potential sources of artifact in simultaneous neural recordings [60].

• Posture and Movement Tracking: In applications such as forward head posture monitoring, IMUs provide joint angle estimation with high precision (e.g., overall error of 4.77°) [59]. This kinematic data enables researchers to identify movement patterns that generate specific artifact signatures in electrophysiological recordings.

EOG/ECG Reference Channels for Physiological Artifact Capture

Dedicated EOG and ECG channels serve as dedicated references for capturing the specific temporal characteristics of ocular and cardiac electrical activity.

• EOG Reference Systems: Electrodes placed around the eyes capture potential differences generated by eye movements and blinks, providing a direct measure of ocular activity that contaminates frontal and widespread EEG channels [61] [53].

• ECG Reference Systems: Electrodes placed on the torso or limbs capture the electrical activity of the heart, which can propagate to the scalp and manifest as rhythmic artifacts in EEG recordings, particularly in electrode locations closer to the neck and posterior regions [53].

The signals from these dedicated reference channels preserve the precise timing and morphology of artifacts, which is essential for implementing effective artifact removal algorithms in the presence of spectral overlap.

Methodological Implementation: Experimental Protocols and Integration

Multi-Modal Data Acquisition and Synchronization

Successful integration of auxiliary sensors requires careful experimental design with precise temporal synchronization across all data streams.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Sensor Neural Recording

Component	Specifications	Function in Experimental Setup
High-Density EEG System	32+ channels; Sampling rate ≥200 Hz; Compatible with auxiliary inputs [52]	Primary neural signal acquisition; Provides infrastructure for reference channel integration
Auxiliary Bioamplifiers	EOG: Bipolar setup; ECG: Lead I or II configuration; sEMG: Appropriate gain settings [61] [59]	Conditions weak physiological signals from eyes, heart, and muscles for recording
Inertial Measurement Unit	Triaxial accelerometer (±2g range; 1600 Hz sampling) [60]; 9-DoF IMU for orientation tracking [59]	Quantifies subject motion and kinematics correlated with motion artifacts
e-Textile Integration	Conductive fibers (e.g., Imbut's Elitex) for electrodes and interconnects [59]	Enhances wearability and comfort; Improves skin-electrode interface for stable recordings
Synchronization Hardware	Hardware trigger lines; Shared master clock; Common timestamps across data streams	Ensures temporal alignment of neural data with auxiliary sensor readings for precise artifact removal

Signal Processing Workflows and Artifact Removal Algorithms

The core analytical challenge lies in leveraging the information from auxiliary sensors to remove artifacts while preserving neural signals. Contemporary approaches have evolved from simple regression to sophisticated machine learning frameworks.

Detailed Experimental Protocol for Multi-Sensor Artifact Removal:

• Hardware Setup and Synchronization: Configure the primary neural data acquisition system (EEG/LFP) alongside auxiliary sensors. Establish a shared master clock or hardware trigger system to synchronize all data streams with millisecond precision. For EOG, place electrodes above and below the eye (vertical EOG) and at the outer canthi (horizontal EOG). For ECG, use a standard Lead I or II configuration. Position IMUs on body parts whose movement most strongly correlates with artifacts in the neural signal [60] [59].

• Data Collection with Ground Truth Events: Record data during both artifact-free baseline periods and during deliberately induced artifact conditions (e.g., instructed eye blinks, head movements, standardized motor tasks). These labeled periods serve as crucial ground truth for training and validating data-driven artifact removal algorithms [23] [61].

• Preprocessing and Feature Extraction: Apply appropriate bandpass filtering to each signal modality (e.g., 1-35 Hz for EEG, 0.1-15 Hz for EOG, 0.5-40 Hz for ECG, and 0-20 Hz for motion-related IMU data) [52] [53]. Extract relevant features from the auxiliary signals; for IMU data, this may include magnitude of acceleration, angular velocity, or derived posture angles [60] [59].

• Artifact Identification and Removal:

  • For Regression-Based Methods: Calculate the transmission factors between the reference EOG/ECG channels and the contaminated EEG channels. Subtract the scaled reference signal from the neural data [13].
  • For Blind Source Separation (BSS): Combine the neural data and auxiliary sensor inputs, then apply ICA or similar algorithms. Components showing high correlation with the auxiliary references are identified as artifactual and removed before signal reconstruction [23] [53].
  • For Deep Learning Approaches: Train models (e.g., CNNs, LSTMs, or Transformers) using the raw neural data as input and the simultaneously recorded auxiliary data as conditional information. The network learns to predict and subtract the artifactual component [61] [53]. Advanced architectures like CM-FusionNet use cross-modal attention mechanisms to effectively integrate EEG and EOG features for superior artifact removal [61].

• Validation and Performance Metrics: Quantify performance using metrics that compare processed signals to artifact-free baseline recordings or semi-synthetic data with known ground truth. Key metrics include Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Correlation Coefficient (CC), and Relative Root Mean Squared Error in temporal and spectral domains (RRMSEt, RRMSEf) [6] [53].

Empirical Validation and Performance Metrics

Rigorous evaluation demonstrates the quantitative benefits of incorporating auxiliary sensors. The following table summarizes performance gains from selected studies:

Table 3: Quantitative Performance of Auxiliary Sensor-Based Artifact Removal

Study & Modality	Artifact Target	Key Algorithm	Performance Metrics vs. Baseline
CM-FusionNet [61]EEG + EOG	Mental Fatigue Detection(Classification)	Cross-Modal Transformer with Channel Attention	Accuracy: 84.62%F1-Score: 85.25%(2.88% accuracy increase vs. EEG-only)
CLEnet [53]EEG + Reference	Multi-Artifact Removal(EOG, EMG, ECG)	Dual-Scale CNN + LSTM + EMA-1D	SNR: 11.50 dB; CC: 0.925RRMSEt: 0.300; RRMSEf: 0.319(Outperformed 1D-ResCNN, NovelCNN, DuoCL)
e-Textile Vest [59]sEMG + IMU	Forward Posture Monitoring	Sensor Fusion & Joint Angle Estimation	sEMG RMSE: 10.02%Angle Estimation Error: 4.77°(Validated against robotic arm ground truth)
LSTM-Based [13]Single-Channel LFP	General Artifact Recreation	Long Short-Term Memory Network	Faithful temporal & spectralrecreation of artifact-free segments(Channel-independent solution)

The integration of IMUs and EOG/ECG reference channels represents a methodological imperative for advancing neural signal research in the presence of spectral overlap constraints. These auxiliary sensors provide the critical external information required to disentangle confounding artifacts from neural signals of interest, enabling more accurate analysis of brain function in both laboratory and real-world settings. As research progresses, future developments will likely focus on several key areas: the creation of more sophisticated and computationally efficient deep learning architectures for multi-sensor fusion; improved hardware integration through e-textiles and wearable electronics; and the establishment of standardized benchmarking datasets and protocols for objective performance evaluation across different artifact removal strategies. For researchers in both academic and pharmaceutical development settings, mastering these multi-sensor approaches is becoming increasingly essential for generating reliable, interpretable neural data free from the confounding effects of physiological and motion artifacts.

In neuroscience research and neurotechnology development, the integrity of acquired neural signals is paramount. The core challenge lies in the fundamental frequency overlap between genuine brain activity and contaminating artifacts, which complicates the process of distinguishing signal from noise. Electroencephalography (EEG) signals, typically measured in microvolts, are exceptionally susceptible to contamination from various physiological and non-physiological sources [2]. These artifacts can significantly distort data, potentially leading to clinical misdiagnosis in severe cases, such as when artifacts mimic epileptiform activity or sleep rhythms [2]. This paper establishes a structured framework for parameter tuning and quality control, providing researchers and drug development professionals with validated benchmarks to ensure the efficacy of cleaning processes for neural data. The ultimate goal is to enhance the reliability of neural signal analysis, a critical factor for advancing both basic neuroscience and therapeutic development.

Characterization of Neural Signal Contaminants

A systematic approach to cleaning begins with a thorough identification and understanding of common artifacts. These are broadly categorized by their origin.

Physiological Artifacts

Physiological artifacts originate from the subject's own bodily functions and represent some of the most pervasive challenges in EEG recording [2] [62].

• Ocular Activity (EOG): Generated by eye blinks and movements, these artifacts produce sharp, high-amplitude deflections (up to 100–200 µV) primarily over frontal electrodes. Their spectral energy is dominant in the delta (0.5–4 Hz) and theta (4–8 Hz) bands, directly overlapping with rhythms associated with cognitive processes and drowsiness [2].
• Muscle Activity (EMG): Resulting from jaw clenching, swallowing, or facial movements, EMG artifacts introduce broadband, high-frequency noise that significantly contaminates the beta (13–30 Hz) and gamma (>30 Hz) ranges. This masks critical signals related to motor activity and higher-order cognition [2].
• Cardiac Activity (ECG): The heart's electrical signal can manifest as a rhythmic artifact in EEG recordings, particularly in electrodes close to the neck. Its frequency overlaps with several standard EEG bands [2].
• Perspiration and Respiration: These can cause slow baseline drifts and impedance changes, contaminating the very low-frequency delta band and complicating the study of sleep or slow cortical potentials [2].

Non-Physiological and Technical Artifacts

This category encompasses external interference and equipment-related issues [2] [62].

• Power Line Interference: A sharp spectral peak at 50 Hz or 60 Hz from ambient AC power sources is a common issue [2].
• Electrode Pop: Sudden changes in electrode-skin impedance cause transient, high-amplitude spikes that can be mistaken for neural events [2].
• Subject Motion: Head or body movements can introduce large, non-linear noise bursts, a particular challenge in mobile and ambulatory EEG systems [2].

Table 1: Key Artifacts in Neural Signal Acquisition and Their Characteristics

Artifact Type	Origin	Primary Frequency Band	Impact on Neural Signal
Ocular (EOG)	Eye blinks & movements	Delta / Theta (0.5–8 Hz)	Obscures cognitive rhythms, introduces high-amplitude spikes
Muscle (EMG)	Facial, jaw, neck muscles	Beta / Gamma (>13 Hz)	Masks motor and cognitive activity with broadband noise
Cardiac (ECG)	Heartbeat	Varies (∼1 Hz & harmonics)	Introduces rhythmic, non-neural correlations
Electrode Pop	Impedance shift at electrode	Broadband	Mimics pathological spikes or epileptiform activity
Power Line	AC electrical fields	50/60 Hz (narrowband)	Obscures neural activity in the gamma range
Motion	Head/body movement	Very Low Freq. / Broadband	Causes severe signal drift and non-stationary noise

Parameter Tuning for Advanced Artifact Removal Techniques

Selecting and optimally configuring artifact removal algorithms is a critical form of parameter tuning that directly impacts data quality.

Classical and Blind Source Separation Techniques

• Filtering Methods: These are foundational techniques for targeting artifacts in specific frequency bands.

  • Band-pass filtering confines the signal to the band of interest (e.g., 1–40 Hz for EEG) [62].
  • Notch filtering is specifically used to remove power-line interference at 50/60 Hz [62].
  • Parameter Tuning Consideration: The critical parameters are the filter's cutoff frequencies, roll-off (slope), and type (e.g., Butterworth, Chebyshev). Overly aggressive filtering can distort the neural signal of interest, while insufficient filtering leaves contaminating noise.

• Independent Component Analysis (ICA): ICA is a blind source separation technique that decomposes the recorded data into statistically independent components [2] [62]. Artifactual components (e.g., from eye blinks or muscle activity) are then identified and removed before signal reconstruction.

  • Parameter Tuning Consideration: The choice of the algorithm (e.g., Infomax, FastICA) and the criteria for component rejection are crucial. This often relies on visual inspection or automated classification based on component topography, power spectrum, and kurtosis.

• Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR): ASR is an adaptive, data-driven method that uses techniques like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to identify and remove high-variance artifact subspaces from the data in real-time [62].

  • Parameter Tuning Consideration: The key parameter is the standard deviation cutoff, which defines the threshold for identifying artifact-dominated segments. Setting this threshold too low can remove neural signals, while a value too high leaves artifacts in the data.

Machine Learning and Deep Learning Approaches

Modern approaches leverage machine learning to tackle complex, non-linear artifacts.

• Machine Learning Algorithms: Supervised models like Support Vector Machines (SVMs) and Random Forests can be trained to classify signal components as "brain" or "artifact" based on features extracted from labeled data [62].
• Deep Learning Techniques: Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) can learn complex, non-linear patterns to separate clean signals from contaminated recordings in an end-to-end fashion [62] [63]. Hybrid models, such as combinations of CNN and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, are particularly effective for capturing both spatial and temporal features in EEG data [2].
• Parameter Tuning Consideration: For these models, hyperparameter optimization (HPO) is essential. Key parameters include the learning rate, network architecture (number of layers and units), batch size, and regularization strength. As highlighted in benchmarking studies, the selection of HPO techniques (e.g., Bayesian optimization, evolutionary algorithms) significantly impacts the final model performance and requires careful consideration of the computational budget and data characteristics [64].

Table 2: Comparison of Artifact Removal Techniques and Key Parameters

Technique	Underlying Principle	Key Tunable Parameters	Advantages	Limitations
Filtering	Frequency-based separation	Cut-off frequencies, roll-off, filter type	Simple, fast, effective for stationary noise	Can distort signal, ineffective for spectral overlap
ICA	Statistical independence	Algorithm type, component selection criteria	Effective for separating stereotypical artifacts	Requires manual component inspection, sensitive to data quality
ASR	Statistical outlier rejection	Standard deviation cutoff, chunk size	Adaptive, can be used for online processing	May remove high-amplitude neural activity
Machine Learning	Pattern classification	Feature set, model architecture, hyperparameters	Can learn complex, non-linear patterns	Requires large, accurately labeled datasets
Deep Learning	End-to-end feature learning	Network architecture, learning rate, batch size	High performance, minimal feature engineering	Computationally intensive, "black box" nature

Figure 1: A generalized workflow for neural signal cleaning, highlighting the iterative relationship between artifact identification and the application of removal techniques.

Establishing Quality Control Benchmarks and Protocols

Robust quality control requires predefined, quantitative benchmarks to validate the effectiveness of any cleaning procedure.

Defining Acceptance Criteria for Clean Signals

Inspired by rigorous frameworks like the FDA's guidance on cleaning validation in pharmaceutical manufacturing, quality control for neural data must establish clear, scientifically justifiable acceptance criteria [65] [66]. These criteria should be multi-faceted:

• Physical/Topographical Criterion: A visual inspection of the signal and its topographic distribution should reveal an absence of characteristic artifactual patterns (e.g., frontal high-amplitude deflections from blinks) [2] [66].
• Statistical Criterion: The cleaned signal should exhibit statistical properties consistent with known neural activity. This can be measured via the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), which should exceed a predefined threshold post-cleaning. Furthermore, the rate of data loss from artifact rejection should be kept below an acceptable limit (e.g., <5-10% of total data) [2].
• Spectral Criterion: The power spectrum of the cleaned signal should not contain anomalous peaks corresponding to known artifacts (e.g., 50/60 Hz line noise, or excessive power in the EMG frequency bands) without a clear neural origin [2].

Experimental Protocol for Cleaning Validation

The following protocol provides a detailed methodology for validating the effectiveness of an artifact cleaning pipeline.

• Objective: To provide documented evidence that a specific artifact removal procedure effectively reduces contaminants in neural data to an acceptable level without significantly distorting the underlying neural signal of interest.
• Prerequisites:
  • A written procedure (SOP) detailing the cleaning process and its parameters [65] [67].
  • A predefined validation protocol specifying acceptance criteria, sampling, and test methods [65] [67].
• Materials: Refer to "The Scientist's Toolkit" below.
• Methodology:
  • Data Acquisition & Contamination Introduction: Acquire neural data (e.g., EEG) while subjects perform tasks known to induce artifacts (e.g., deliberate eye blinks, jaw clenching). Simultaneously, record reference signals from dedicated EOG and EMG electrodes if available [68].
  • Ground Truth Establishment: Identify and tag epochs of data with severe, unambiguous artifacts. Epochs from resting-state conditions with minimal movement can serve as a "clean" baseline for comparison.
  • Application of Cleaning Procedure: Apply the artifact removal algorithm (e.g., ICA, ASR, deep learning model) with its specific tuned parameters to the contaminated dataset.
  • Sampling and Testing: Quantitatively compare the pre- and post-cleaning data using the following metrics on the previously tagged epochs:
    • Amplitude Analysis: Calculate the reduction in amplitude (in µV) in artifact-dominated channels.
    • Spectral Analysis: Compute the power spectral density to quantify the reduction of power in artifact-specific frequency bands (e.g., 50/60 Hz, EMG band 20-300 Hz).
    • Neural Signal Integrity Check: On the "clean" baseline epochs, measure the change in power of known neural oscillatory bands (e.g., alpha, beta) to ensure they are preserved.
• Validation and Reporting: A final report approved by the responsible personnel should state whether the cleaning process is valid based on the pre-defined acceptance criteria. The report must be based on data from multiple successful consecutive applications (e.g., three) to demonstrate consistency [65] [67].

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Neural Signal Cleaning Research

Item / Resource	Function in Cleaning Validation
High-Density EEG System with Reference Electrodes	Provides spatial resolution for source localization and allows recording of EOG/ECG for reference-based artifact removal.
Data Simulator (e.g., MATLAB Toolboxes)	Generates synthetic neural data with known, precisely timed artifacts, enabling quantitative benchmarking of removal techniques.
Blind Source Separation Software (e.g., EEGLAB)	Provides implementations of ICA and other decomposition algorithms for component-based artifact removal.
Machine Learning Frameworks (e.g., TensorFlow, PyTorch)	Enables the development and training of custom deep learning models for artifact detection and removal.
Hyperparameter Optimization (HPO) Platforms	Automates the search for optimal model parameters (e.g., using Bayesian optimization), improving cleaning performance [64].
Standardized Validation Datasets	Publicly available datasets containing labeled artifacts, allowing for benchmark comparisons across different labs and methods.

Establishing rigorous benchmarks for parameter tuning and quality control is not an auxiliary task but a foundational component of credible neural signal research. The pervasive challenge of frequency overlap between artifacts and brain signals demands a systematic approach, integrating a deep understanding of artifact origins, careful tuning of removal algorithms, and validation against multi-faceted acceptance criteria. By adopting the structured protocols and benchmarks outlined in this guide—inspired by rigorous validation principles from other regulated fields—researchers and drug developers can significantly enhance the reliability, reproducibility, and interpretability of their neural data. This, in turn, accelerates the translation of neuroscience discoveries into tangible clinical applications and therapeutic innovations.

Benchmarking Performance: Validation Metrics and Comparative Analysis of Techniques

This technical guide provides an in-depth examination of three fundamental performance metrics—Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Correlation Coefficient, and Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSE)—within the context of neural signal research. With the increasing focus on decoding brain activity for neurological disorder diagnosis and drug development, accurately distinguishing neural signals from artifacts has become paramount. These metrics provide the quantitative framework necessary to validate signal processing algorithms, optimize artifact removal techniques, and ensure the reliability of electrophysiological biomarkers. This whitepaper details the mathematical foundations, practical applications, and methodological protocols for employing these metrics in research settings, particularly addressing the challenge of frequency overlap between neural signals and artifacts.

Electroencephalography (EEG) and other neurophysiological recording techniques provide non-invasive, high-temporal-resolution windows into brain activity, making them invaluable for researching neurological disorders and therapeutic interventions [52] [53]. However, the analysis of neural signals is significantly complicated by the presence of physiological artifacts (e.g., from eye movements, muscle activity, cardiac rhythms) and non-physiological noise that often occupy overlapping frequency bands with neural signals of interest [53]. This frequency domain overlap renders simple filtering approaches insufficient and necessitates advanced signal processing techniques.

Within this challenging analytical environment, robust quantitative metrics are essential for developing and validating methods that can separate true neural activity from contaminants. SNR provides a fundamental measure of signal clarity, the Correlation Coefficient quantifies the preservation of original signal dynamics, and RRMSE offers a normalized assessment of reconstruction accuracy. Together, this triad of metrics enables researchers to objectively evaluate algorithm performance, compare methodologies across studies, and establish confidence in the extracted neural features used for drug development and clinical diagnostics.

Mathematical Definitions and Interpretations

Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)

Definition: SNR is a measure that compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise, quantifying how clearly a signal can be distinguished from noise [69] [70]. It is defined as the ratio of signal power to noise power.

Formulae: The most common formulation expresses SNR in decibels (dB), a logarithmic scale that accommodates the wide dynamic range of signals [69] [71]:

• Power-Based: ( \text{SNR}{\text{dB}} = 10 \log{10}\left(\frac{P{\text{signal}}}{P{\text{noise}}}\right) )
• Amplitude-Based (Voltage): ( \text{SNR}{\text{dB}} = 20 \log{10}\left(\frac{A{\text{signal}}}{A{\text{noise}}}\right) )

Here, (P) represents average power and (A) represents root-mean-square (RMS) amplitude [69]. For signals measured as voltages across the same impedance, the amplitude-based formula is appropriate.

Interpretation and Clinical Relevance: SNR values are always relative, but higher values consistently indicate cleaner, more detectable signals [69] [70]. In neuroscience, a high SNR means that features of neural activity (e.g., event-related potentials, oscillatory bursts) are more easily distinguished from background brain activity and non-neural artifacts. This is crucial for identifying subtle neurophysiological changes in response to pharmacological interventions.

Table 1: Interpretation Guide for SNR Values in Decibels (dB)

SNR Range (dB)	Interpretation	Implication for Neural Signal Analysis
< 0 dB	Very Poor	Noise dominates; signal is unusable for analysis.
0 - 10 dB	Poor	Signal is barely detectable; high error rates likely.
10 - 20 dB	Marginal	Signal can be observed but with significant noise contamination.
20 - 30 dB	Acceptable	Adequate for basic analysis; some noise may be noticeable.
30 - 40 dB	Good	Good quality for most analytical purposes; noise is faint.
> 40 dB	Very Good to Excellent	High-fidelity signal; noise is negligible for most applications [70].

An alternative definition of SNR, used particularly in imaging and measurement contexts, is the ratio of the mean (( \mu )) to the standard deviation (( \sigma )) of a signal or measurement: ( \text{SNR} = \frac{\mu}{\sigma} ) [69]. A related concept is the Contrast-to-Noise Ratio (CNR), which measures the separation between an object and its background and is defined as ( \text{CNR} = \frac{\mu{\text{object}} - \mu{\text{background}}}{\sigma_{\text{background}}} ) [72]. This is highly relevant for distinguishing specific neural events from the ongoing EEG background.

Pearson Correlation Coefficient (CC)

Definition: The Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) measures the linear correlation between two sets of data, serving as a normalized index of their linear relationship with a value between -1 and 1 [73].

Formula: For a sample of paired data points ( (x1, y1), ..., (xn, yn) ), the sample correlation coefficient ( r_{xy} ) is calculated as:

[ r{xy} = \frac{\sum{i=1}^n (xi - \bar{x})(yi - \bar{y})}{\sqrt{\sum{i=1}^n (xi - \bar{x})^2} \sqrt{\sum{i=1}^n (yi - \bar{y})^2}} ]

where ( \bar{x} ) and ( \bar{y} ) are the sample means [73]. The coefficient is essentially the covariance of the two variables divided by the product of their standard deviations.

Interpretation and Clinical Relevance: In neural signal processing, the correlation coefficient is extensively used to compare a processed or reconstructed signal (e.g., after artifact removal) with a ground-truth or original signal [53]. A value close to +1 indicates that the processed signal perfectly preserves the temporal dynamics of the original neural activity. This is vital for ensuring that signal processing algorithms do not distort the underlying neurophysiological information, which is essential for accurate feature extraction in drug development studies.

Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSE)

Definition: RRMSE is a normalized measure of the differences between values predicted by a model and the values observed. It is particularly useful for comparing the accuracy of models across different scales of data [74].

Formulae: Multiple formulations exist, reflecting its application in different domains. The core concept involves normalizing the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) by a measure of the magnitude of the true values.

• Standard RRMSE: This version normalizes the RMSE by the square root of the mean of the squared predicted values [75]. [ \text{RRMSE} = \sqrt{ \frac{ \frac{1}{n} \sum{i=1}^n (Ti - Xi)^2 }{ \frac{1}{n} \sum{i=1}^n Ti^2 } } = \frac{ \sqrt{ \frac{1}{n} \sum{i=1}^n (Ti - Xi)^2 } }{ \sqrt{ \frac{1}{n} \sum{i=1}^n Ti^2 } } ] where ( Ti ) are the true values and ( Xi ) are the predicted values.

• RMS Relative Error (RMSRE): This formulation calculates the root mean of the squared relative errors [76]. [ \text{RMSRE} = \sqrt{ \frac{1}{n} \sum{i=1}^n \left( \frac{Xi}{T_i} - 1 \right)^2 } ]

• Alternative Normalization: Another common approach is to normalize the RMSE by the mean of the true observed values [74]. [ \text{RRMSE} = \frac{ \text{RMSE} }{ \bar{T} } = \frac{ \sqrt{ \frac{1}{n} \sum{i=1}^n (Ti - Xi)^2 } }{ \frac{1}{n} \sum{i=1}^n T_i } ]

Interpretation and Clinical Relevance: A lower RRMSE indicates better model performance or signal reconstruction fidelity. Its normalized nature makes it ideal for comparing the performance of artifact removal algorithms across different subjects, EEG channels, or datasets where the overall signal power may vary [74]. In recent literature, RRMSE is reported in both the time domain (RRMSEt) and the frequency domain (RRMSEf) to provide a comprehensive assessment of a model's ability to reconstruct both temporal and spectral features of neural signals accurately [53].

Table 2: Summary of Key Performance Metrics

Metric	Mathematical Principle	Optimal Value	Primary Research Application
SNR	Ratio of signal power to noise power (logarithmic).	Higher is better (> 20-30 dB for good quality) [71] [70].	Quantifying signal clarity and detectability amidst noise.
Correlation Coefficient (CC)	Normalized measure of linear covariance.	+1 (Perfect positive correlation).	Assessing preservation of signal dynamics after processing.
RRMSE	Normalized measure of average error magnitude.	0 (No error); Lower is better.	Comparing model/reconstruction accuracy across different scales.

Experimental Protocols and Applications

The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow in neural signal research where these metrics are typically applied, from data acquisition to final evaluation.

Diagram 1: Workflow for Evaluating Neural Signal Processing Algorithms

Detailed Protocol for EEG Artifact Removal Study

The methodology below is synthesized from recent research on deep learning-based EEG artifact removal, which provides a robust framework for applying SNR, CC, and RRMSE [53].

1. Data Preparation and Preprocessing:

• Data Acquisition: Collect multi-channel EEG recordings following the international 10-20 system protocol. Recordings should include both resting-state and task-based conditions. A sampling frequency of 200 Hz or higher is standard [52] [53].
• Artifact Contamination: For algorithm development and validation, use semi-synthetic datasets where clean EEG is artificially contaminated with recorded artifacts (e.g., EOG, EMG, ECG) at known levels. This provides a controllable ground truth [53]. Real datasets with unknown artifacts are also essential for final testing.
• Preprocessing Pipeline:
  • Bandpass Filtering: Apply a 1-35 Hz bandpass filter to isolate conventional frequency bands (delta, theta, alpha, beta) and remove extreme high-frequency noise and DC drift [52] [53].
  • Independent Component Analysis (ICA): Use algorithms like FASTICA to identify and remove obvious artifact components related to eye blinks and muscle activity [52].
  • Re-referencing: Use a longitudinal bipolar montage (e.g., Fp1-F3, F3-C3, C3-P3, P3-O1) to minimize volume conduction effects and enhance spatial resolution [52].
  • Data Segmentation: Divide the continuous EEG data into epochs or segments suitable for the analysis algorithm (e.g., using sliding windows).

2. Algorithm Application (e.g., CLEnet Model):

• Model Input: Feed the artifact-contaminated EEG signals into the processing algorithm. In advanced models like CLEnet, which integrates Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, the input is the multi-channel time-series data [53].
• Feature Extraction: The model automatically extracts morphological features (via CNN) and temporal features (via LSTM) to separate genuine EEG from artifacts [53].
• Signal Reconstruction: The algorithm outputs a cleaned or reconstructed version of the EEG signal.

3. Performance Metric Calculation:

• SNR Calculation: Calculate the SNR of the reconstructed signal. In studies, this often involves comparing the power of the reconstructed clean signal to the power of the removed artifact component, expressed in dB [53].
• Correlation Coefficient (CC): Compute the CC between the reconstructed EEG and the ground truth clean EEG (in semi-synthetic experiments) across all data samples to measure the preservation of temporal dynamics [53].
• RRMSE Calculation: Calculate both temporal RRMSE (RRMSEt) and frequency-domain RRMSE (RRMSEf). RRMSEt assesses the time-series accuracy, while RRMSEf is computed on the power spectral density of the signals to assess spectral fidelity [53].

4. Statistical Validation:

• Perform repeated experiments across multiple subjects and datasets.
• Use statistical tests like ANOVA to confirm that observed improvements in SNR, CC, and RRMSE are significant [52].
• Compare the performance of the novel algorithm against established baseline methods (e.g., 1D-ResCNN, NovelCNN) to demonstrate superiority [53].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Materials and Tools for Neural Signal Processing Research

Item / Solution	Specification / Function	Example in Context
EEG Acquisition System	High-temporal-resolution system with multiple electrodes (e.g., 32-channel) for recording brain electrical activity.	Neurofax EEG-1200C system (Nihon Kohden) for collecting raw neural data [52].
Preprocessing Software	Computational environment for filtering, ICA, and data segmentation.	MATLAB with toolboxes (e.g., EEGLAB, FASTICA) for initial signal cleaning [52] [53].
Deep Learning Framework	Software libraries for building and training neural network models.	Python with PyTorch or TensorFlow to implement models like CLEnet for artifact removal [53].
Semi-Synthetic Benchmark Dataset	Publicly available datasets mixing clean EEG with known artifacts.	EEGdenoiseNet for controlled training and validation of algorithms [53].
Ground Truth Data	Known-clean signals for comparison; crucial for calculating CC and RRMSE.	The original clean EEG segment in a semi-synthetic dataset, or a validated expert-cleaned real signal [53].
Computational Resources	Hardware with sufficient processing power (e.g., GPUs) for training complex models.	GPU-accelerated workstations or servers to handle the computational load of deep learning models [53].

SNR, Correlation Coefficient, and RRMSE are indispensable metrics that form the bedrock of quantitative assessment in neural signal processing research. Their combined application provides a multi-faceted view of algorithm performance: SNR quantifies the fundamental detectability of a signal, the Correlation Coefficient ensures the integrity of its temporal structure, and RRMSE offers a scale-invariant measure of reconstruction accuracy. As research continues to tackle the complex problem of frequency-overlapping artifacts in EEG, these metrics will remain crucial for validating new methodologies, ensuring the reliability of neurophysiological biomarkers, and ultimately advancing drug development for neurological and psychiatric disorders. The standardized application of these metrics, as detailed in this guide, will foster reproducibility and robust comparison of results across the scientific community.

The analysis of neural signals, particularly electroencephalography (EEG), is fundamentally complicated by the problem of frequency overlap, where artifacts such as eyeblinks (EOG), muscle activity (EMG), and cardiac signals (ECG) occupy similar spectral bands as neural signals of interest. This overlap renders simple frequency-based filtering ineffective and poses a significant challenge in neuroscience research and drug development where clean neural signals are critical for accurate assessment. For decades, Independent Component Analysis (ICA) has been the cornerstone technique for addressing this challenge through blind source separation. However, the recent advent of deep learning (DL) has introduced powerful alternatives that learn complex, non-linear relationships directly from data.

This whitepaper provides a comprehensive technical comparison between traditional ICA and modern deep learning approaches for artifact removal, with particular emphasis on their efficacy in handling the pervasive issue of frequency overlap. We present structured quantitative data, detailed experimental protocols, and practical toolkits to guide researchers and scientists in selecting and implementing appropriate methodologies for their specific applications.

Theoretical Foundations and Key Differences

Independent Component Analysis (ICA)

ICA is a computational method for separating a multivariate signal into additive subcomponents by assuming that the source signals are statistically independent and non-Gaussian [77]. The core model assumes that observed signals x are linear mixtures of independent sources s through a mixing matrix A:

x = As

The fundamental principle relies on the Central Limit Theorem, which suggests that mixtures of independent signals tend toward Gaussian distributions. ICA algorithms therefore work to maximize the non-Gaussianity of the separated components to recover the original sources [78]. Key assumptions include:

• Statistical independence: The source signals are statistically independent.
• Non-Gaussianity: At most one source can have a Gaussian distribution.
• Linear mixing: The observed signals are linear, instantaneous mixtures of the sources.

Deep Learning Approaches

Deep learning approaches for artifact removal utilize neural networks with multiple processing layers to learn complex, non-linear mappings directly from data. Unlike ICA, they do not rely on strict statistical assumptions of linearity or independence. Common architectures include:

• Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs): Extract spatial and morphological features from signals [53].
• Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Networks: Model temporal dependencies in sequential data [53].
• Hybrid Architectures: Combine CNNs and LSTMs to capture both spatial and temporal features simultaneously [53].
• Transformers: Utilize self-attention mechanisms to focus on local and non-local features [53].

Comparative Framework

Table 1: Fundamental Differences Between ICA and Deep Learning Approaches

Aspect	Traditional ICA	Deep Learning Approaches
Underlying Principle	Statistical independence & non-Gaussianity [77]	Learned non-linear mappings from data [79]
Linearity Assumption	Linear mixing model [78]	No linearity requirement
Feature Engineering	Manual component classification [80]	Automatic feature extraction [79]
Data Requirements	Works with smaller datasets [79]	Requires large amounts of training data [79]
Computational Demand	Lower computational requirements [79]	High computational cost, often needs GPUs [79]
Interpretability	Higher (components can be visually inspected) [80]	Lower ("black box" models) [79]
Handling Frequency Overlap	Separation based on statistical independence	Separation based on learned patterns in training data

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Recent studies have directly compared the performance of ICA and deep learning methods across various artifact types and datasets. The metrics commonly used include Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Correlation Coefficient (CC), and Root Relative Mean Squared Error (RRMSE) in both temporal and spectral domains.

Table 2: Performance Comparison in EEG Artifact Removal

Artifact Type	Best Performing Method	Key Metrics	Comparative Performance
Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES)	Complex CNN (for tDCS); M4 SSM (for tACS/tRNS) [6]	RRMSE (temporal & spectral), Correlation Coefficient	Deep learning models (Complex CNN, M4) outperformed traditional methods including ICA for all tES types [6]
EOG & EMG (Single-Channel)	CLEnet (CNN-LSTM with EMA-1D) [53]	SNR, CC, RRMSE (temporal & spectral)	CLEnet achieved SNR: 11.498dB, CC: 0.925, outperforming 1D-ResCNN, NovelCNN, and DuoCL [53]
ECG (Single-Channel)	CLEnet [53]	SNR, CC, RRMSE (temporal & spectral)	Superior to DuoCL: +5.13% SNR, +0.75% CC, -8.08% RRMSEt, -5.76% RRMSEf [53]
Multi-channel EEG with Unknown Artifacts	CLEnet [53]	SNR, CC, RRMSE (temporal & spectral)	Outperformed other models: +2.45% SNR, +2.65% CC, -6.94% RRMSEt, -3.30% RRMSEf vs. DuoCL [53]
Automated ICA Component Classification	LDA with Image Features [80]	Classification Accuracy	88% accuracy in automated artifact component identification using range filter features [80]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Traditional ICA Workflow for EEG Artifact Removal

The standard ICA pipeline for EEG artifact removal involves sequential steps that can be partially automated but often require expert intervention.

Protocol Steps:

• Data Acquisition & Preprocessing: Collect multi-channel EEG data according to international 10-20 system. Apply bandpass filtering (typically 1-35 Hz) to remove extreme frequency noise and DC drift. Re-reference signals to common average or specific montage. Optionally reject trials with extreme voltage values [81] [52].

• ICA Decomposition:

  • Center data by subtracting the mean.
  • Whiten data using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to remove second-order correlations.
  • Apply ICA algorithm (Infomax, FastICA, or JADE) to decompose preprocessed EEG data into independent components (ICs) [78].
  • Each IC consists of a fixed scalp topography and associated time course.

• Component Classification:

  • Visual Inspection: Experts examine IC scalp maps and time courses to identify artifact patterns (e.g., frontal distribution for eyeblinks, temporal for muscle noise) [81].
  • Automated Classification: Extract features from ICs using image processing algorithms (range filters, local binary patterns, geometric features). Apply Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) or other classifiers to identify artifact components with up to 88% accuracy [80].

• Signal Reconstruction: Remove components identified as artifacts from the mixing matrix. Reconstruct clean EEG signals by projecting the remaining components back to sensor space [80].

Deep Learning Protocol for End-to-End Artifact Removal

Deep learning approaches implement an end-to-end training paradigm where the network learns to directly map contaminated signals to clean outputs.

Protocol Steps:

• Dataset Preparation:

  • Create semi-synthetic datasets by adding recorded artifacts (EOG, EMG, ECG) to clean EEG templates at varying Signal-to-Noise Ratios [53].
  • For real-world validation, use task-based EEG recordings with naturally occurring artifacts [53].
  • Split data into training, validation, and test sets (typically 70-15-15 ratio).

• Network Architecture & Training:

  • CLEnet Example: Implement dual-branch architecture with:
    • Dual-scale CNN: Use convolutional kernels of different sizes (e.g., 5×1 and 15×1) to extract morphological features at different scales.
    • LSTM Layers: Process sequential data to capture temporal dependencies in neural signals.
    • EMA-1D Attention: Incorporate improved Efficient Multi-Scale Attention to enhance relevant features [53].
  • Training Configuration: Use Mean Squared Error (MSE) between output and clean reference as loss function. Optimize with Adam optimizer or Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). Train for sufficient epochs (typically 100-500) with early stopping [52] [53].

• Evaluation & Validation:

  • Calculate standard metrics: Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Correlation Coefficient (CC), and Root Relative Mean Squared Error (RRMSE) in both temporal and spectral domains.
  • Perform cross-dataset validation to assess generalization capability [53].
  • Compare against benchmark methods (ICA, traditional algorithms) using statistical tests.

The Researcher's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources

Tool/Resource	Function/Purpose	Example Specifications
EEGdenoiseNet	Benchmark dataset with semi-synthetic EEG + artifacts for training and validation [53]	Includes clean EEG, EOG, EMG, and ECG signals with standardized mixing protocols
FASTICA Algorithm	Implementation of FastICA for efficient component separation [52]	MATLAB/Python implementations available; assumes non-Gaussian sources
CLEnet Architecture	Deep learning model for multi-artifact removal from multi-channel EEG [53]	Dual-scale CNN + LSTM + EMA-1D attention; trained end-to-end
ERP CORE	Standardized ERP paradigms and datasets for method validation [81]	Includes data from 40 participants across 6 paradigms with 7 ERP components
Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)	Automated classification of ICA components as neural vs. artifact [80]	Uses image-based features (range filters, geometric features, LBPs)
Radial Basis Function (RBF) Network	Neural network for EEG signal reconstruction and dynamics analysis [52]	Optimized with Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO); captures non-linear dynamics
Quantile Uniform Transformation	Preprocessing technique to reduce feature skewness while preserving patterns [82]	Handles outliers while maintaining attack signatures in security data

Discussion and Future Directions

The comparative analysis reveals a nuanced landscape where both traditional ICA and deep learning approaches have distinct advantages depending on the application context. ICA remains valuable for its interpretability, lower computational demands, and effectiveness with smaller datasets—particularly important in clinical settings or novel research paradigms where data may be limited. The automated component classification methods combining ICA with machine learning classifiers represent an important advancement in reducing expert workload while maintaining interpretability [80].

Deep learning approaches demonstrate superior performance in handling complex, non-linear artifacts, particularly in scenarios with significant frequency overlap where traditional methods struggle. Architectures like CLEnet that combine CNNs and LSTMs show remarkable capability in extracting both morphological and temporal features simultaneously, enabling effective removal of multiple artifact types without requiring manual intervention [53]. The ability of deep learning models to process multi-channel EEG data end-to-end and handle "unknown" artifacts not seen during training represents a significant advancement for real-world applications.

For researchers in drug development and clinical neuroscience, the choice between approaches should consider: (1) dataset size and quality, (2) computational resources, (3) interpretability requirements for regulatory compliance, and (4) the specific artifact types prevalent in their experimental paradigms. Hybrid approaches that leverage the strengths of both methodologies—such as using ICA for initial preprocessing and deep learning for fine-grained artifact removal—may offer the most robust solution for addressing the persistent challenge of frequency overlap in neural signal analysis.

Future directions include the development of more interpretable deep learning architectures, federated learning approaches to address data privacy concerns while enabling training on larger datasets, and specialized models optimized for specific clinical applications such as monitoring treatment response in neurological disorders.

In neuroscience and neuropharmacology, the accurate interpretation of brain signals is fundamentally challenged by the pervasive issue of frequency overlap between genuine neural activity and contaminating artifacts. Physiological artifacts such as ocular movements (EOG) and muscle activity (EMG) exhibit spectral characteristics that extensively overlap with key neural oscillatory bands, including delta (1–4 Hz), theta (4–8 Hz), alpha (8–13 Hz), and beta (12–30 Hz) rhythms [83] [27]. This overlap renders traditional frequency-based filtering ineffective, as it risks removing crucial neural information along with the artifacts, potentially obscuring biomarkers critical for drug development and neurological research.

The rise of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models presents a promising avenue for tackling this complex separation task. However, the proliferation of these methods creates a new challenge: objectively comparing their performance and selecting the most appropriate model for a given experimental context. To this end, standardized benchmarking on public datasets has emerged as an indispensable practice. It provides a controlled, transparent, and reproducible framework for evaluating the efficacy of artifact detection and removal methods, driving innovation and ensuring that advanced algorithms can be reliably translated into both clinical and research settings [83] [84]. This whitepaper outlines the core principles, methodologies, and protocols for establishing such benchmarks, with a specific focus on the problem of frequency overlap in neuronal signals.

The Critical Role of Benchmark Datasets

A benchmark dataset is not merely a collection of data; it is a well-curated collection of expert-labeled data that represents the entire spectrum of conditions and diseases of interest, reflecting the diversity of the target population and variations in data collection methodologies [84]. In the context of artifact removal, these datasets are vital for several reasons:

• Ensuring Generalizability and Reducing Bias: If a dataset used to develop and validate an algorithm is not representative of the target population, significant biases can arise. For instance, a model trained on a homogeneous dataset may fail to perform effectively on data from a different demographic or acquired with different equipment, potentially amplifying health inequities [84].
• Facilitating Objective Comparison: Benchmark datasets provide a common ground for comparing different algorithms using the same metrics and data, moving beyond comparisons based on disparate, privately held datasets that can lead to inflated and non-reproducible performance claims [83] [85].
• Driving Algorithmic Innovation: As demonstrated by projects like ImageNet in computer vision, well-designed public benchmarks create a competitive environment that motivates researchers to develop increasingly sophisticated and effective models [85]. Initiatives like the ABOT (Artefact removal Benchmarking Online Tool) platform aim to provide a similar resource for the neuroscience community, compiling key characteristics from over 120 articles to help compare specific ML models [83].

Table 1: Key Public Benchmark Datasets for Neurosignal Artifact Research

Dataset Name	Modality	Primary Artifacts	Key Features	Notable Use Cases
ABOT Knowledgebase [83]	Multi-modal (EEG, MEG, ECoG)	Physiological, External	Compiles metadata & performance of 120+ ML methods; FAIR principle compliant.	Comparative analysis of ML-based artifact removal methods.
AGNOSTIC [86]	¹H Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS)	Out-of-voxel (OOV) echoes	259,200 synthetic examples; spans 18 field strengths, 15 echo times.	Training/test deep learning models for MRS artifact detection/reconstruction.
EEGdenoiseNet [53]	Electroencephalography (EEG)	EOG, EMG, ECG	Semi-synthetic; provides clean EEG, artifact signals, and contaminated mixtures.	Benchmarking single-channel EEG denoising algorithms.
MagicData340K [87]	Text-to-Image Generation	Anatomical, Structural	340K human-annotated images; fine-grained, multi-label artifact taxonomy.	Assessing physical artifacts in AI-generated images (for visual stimulus quality).
CLEAR Corpus [85]	Educational Text	Readability Complexity	~5,000 reading passages; benchmark for AI-based readability assessment.	Ensuring clarity of written materials in cognitive or clinical studies.

Core Components of a Standardized Benchmarking Framework

Constructing a robust benchmarking framework requires careful consideration of several interconnected components, from dataset creation to performance evaluation.

Principles for Creating High-Quality Benchmark Datasets

The creation of a benchmark dataset is a meticulous process. Key recommendations include [84]:

• Identification of a Specific Use Case: The clinical or research task (e.g., detection, classification, segmentation) and the context (e.g., disease, modality, target population) must be clearly defined from the outset.
• Representativeness of Cases: The dataset must reflect real-world scenarios, encompassing a spectrum of disease severity, demographic diversity, and variations in data acquisition systems (vendors, protocols). This includes the challenging task of incorporating rare diseases, potentially through the use of synthetic data augmentation [84].
• Proper Labeling and Annotation: Labels should be established by domain experts (e.g., radiologists, neuroscientists) with reported years of experience. The annotation format (e.g., DICOM, BIDS) and the inclusion of relevant metadata (demographics, clinical history) are crucial for reproducibility and downstream analysis [84].

Quantitative Performance Metrics

To objectively compare methods, a standard set of quantitative metrics is essential. The following table summarizes common metrics used in evaluating artifact removal performance in neural signals [52] [53] [4]:

Table 2: Key Quantitative Metrics for Artifact Removal Performance

Metric	Formula/Description	Interpretation
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)	( SNR = 10 \log{10}\left(\frac{P{signal}}{P_{noise}}\right) )	Higher values indicate better noise suppression and signal preservation.
Correlation Coefficient (CC)	( CC = \frac{\text{cov}(S{clean}, S{processed})}{\sigma{S{clean}} \sigma{S{processed}}} )	Measures linear relationship with ground truth; closer to 1 is better.
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)	( RMSE = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N}\sum{i=1}^{N}(S{clean}(i) - S_{processed}(i))^2} )	Lower values indicate higher reconstruction accuracy.
Normalized RMSE (NRMSE)	( NRMSE = \frac{RMSE}{S{clean,max} - S{clean,min}} )	Normalized version of RMSE for better comparison across datasets.
Signal-to-Artifact Ratio (SAR)	( SAR = 10 \log{10}\left(\frac{P{signal}}{P_{artifact}}\right) )	Higher values indicate more effective artifact removal.

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

This section details a generalized experimental workflow for benchmarking artifact removal methods, adaptable to specific modalities and algorithms.

Workflow for Benchmarking Artifact Removal Methods

The following diagram illustrates the end-to-end process for establishing and utilizing a benchmark for artifact removal methods.

Protocol 1: Creation of a Semi-Synthetic Benchmark Dataset

This protocol is highly effective for generating a large-scale dataset with a known ground truth, as used in studies like EEGdenoiseNet [53] and AGNOSTIC [86].

• Acquisition of Clean Data: Obtain clean neural signals (e.g., EEG, MEG) from public repositories or controlled laboratory settings. Ensure ethical approvals and data sharing agreements are in place [84] [85].
• Acquisition of Artifact Signals: Record or source isolated artifact signals (e.g., EOG from eye blinks, EMG from jaw clenching).
• Linear Mixing Model: Generate contaminated signals by linearly mixing clean signals (S{clean}) with artifact signals (S{artifact}) at varying Signal-to-Noise Ratios (SNRs). (S{contaminated} = S{clean} + \alpha \cdot S_{artifact}) where (\alpha) is a scaling factor controlling the contamination level [53].
• Validation: Manually inspect a subset of the generated data to ensure the mixtures are physiologically plausible.

Protocol 2: Benchmarking Deep Learning Models for Artifact Removal

This protocol outlines the steps for a standardized evaluation of DL models, such as the CLEnet (CNN-LSTM) or AnEEG (GAN-LSTM) architectures [53] [4].

• Data Partitioning: Split the benchmark dataset (e.g., a semi-synthetic dataset) into three distinct, non-overlapping sets: training (70%), validation (15%), and a held-out test set (15%).
• Model Training:
  • Input: Contaminated signals (S{contaminated}) from the training set.
  • Target: Corresponding clean signals (S{clean}).
  • Loss Function: Use Mean Squared Error (MSE) to minimize the difference between the model's output and the clean ground truth [53] [4].
  • Hyperparameter Tuning: Optimize hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size) using the validation set.
• Model Inference and Evaluation:
  • Process the held-out test set with the trained model to generate the cleaned signal (S_{processed}).
  • Calculate all relevant metrics from Table 2 (SNR, CC, RMSE, etc.) by comparing (S{processed}) with the ground truth (S{clean}).
• Statistical Analysis: Perform statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis) to determine if performance differences between models are significant [52].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The following table catalogues key computational tools, datasets, and methodological approaches that form the essential "research reagents" for modern artifact removal research.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Neural Signal Artifact Research

Reagent / Solution	Type	Primary Function	Example Context
ABOT Platform [83]	Software/Knowledgebase	Online tool for comparing ML-based artifact removal methods from literature.	Holistic overview and selection of methods across neuronal signals.
Independent Component Analysis (ICA) [52] [27]	Algorithm	Blind source separation to isolate artifact components in multi-channel data.	Standard preprocessing step for ocular and muscular artifact removal.
Wavelet Transform [27]	Algorithm	Multi-resolution time-frequency analysis to isolate and remove transient artifacts.	Managing muscular and motion artifacts with non-stationary characteristics.
CNN-LSTM Hybrid (e.g., CLEnet) [53]	Deep Learning Architecture	Extracts spatial/morphological features (CNN) and temporal dependencies (LSTM).	Removing unknown artifacts from multi-channel EEG data.
GAN-based Model (e.g., AnEEG) [4]	Deep Learning Architecture	Generative model trained to produce artifact-free signals from contaminated inputs.	End-to-end denoising of EEG while preserving underlying neural activity.
Semi-Synthetic Dataset [53]	Data	Provides a controlled benchmark with a precise ground truth for model training/validation.	Objective evaluation and comparison of denoising algorithm performance.
Automated Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR) [27]	Algorithm	Statistical method for identifying and removing high-variance artifact components in real-time.	Handling large-amplitude artifacts in wearable EEG during motion.

Advanced Topics and Future Directions

As the field evolves, benchmarking efforts must adapt to new challenges and technological shifts. Two critical areas are the rise of wearable technologies and the use of synthetic data.

Benchmarking for Wearable EEG Technologies

Artifacts in wearable EEG exhibit specific features due to dry electrodes, reduced scalp coverage, and subject mobility [27]. Benchmarking frameworks must, therefore, incorporate data from these devices. Key considerations include:

• Low-Channel Count Scenarios: Evaluating the performance of algorithms when the number of channels is typically below sixteen, which impairs the effectiveness of standard techniques like ICA [27].
• Motion Artifacts: Developing benchmarks that specifically include high-intensity motion artifacts, which are more prevalent in ecological recordings compared to lab settings [27].
• Auxiliary Sensors: Future benchmarks should integrate data from inertial measurement units (IMUs) or other motion sensors to enhance the detection of motion-related artifacts [27].

The Role of Synthetic Data in Benchmarking

Synthetic data, as demonstrated by the AGNOSTIC dataset for MRS, offers a powerful solution to several benchmarking limitations [86].

• Scalability and Control: It allows for the creation of large-scale, diverse datasets that span a wide parameter space (e.g., field strength, echo time, artifact type) which may be difficult or expensive to acquire in vivo [84] [86].
• Precise Ground Truth: The clean, artifact-free target is known exactly, enabling more accurate calculation of performance metrics [86].
• Bridging to Real Data: The ultimate challenge and focus of ongoing research is ensuring that models trained on synthetic data generalize effectively to real-world, clinical data, a process known as overcoming the "reality gap" [86].

The proliferation of wearable electroencephalography (EEG) in clinical, research, and consumer domains has intensified the challenge of maintaining signal integrity amidst physiological artifacts. The core of this challenge lies in the significant frequency overlap between common artifacts and neurophysiological signals of interest. Ocular artifacts (3–15 Hz) encroach upon theta and alpha bands, while muscular artifacts (>20 Hz) can obscure beta and gamma rhythms, complicating analysis in drug development and cognitive neuroscience. This whitepaper provides a technical analysis of contemporary artifact removal strategies, evaluating the efficacy of traditional and machine learning-based pipelines against ocular, muscular, and mixed artifacts. Structured performance tables and detailed experimental protocols offer researchers a definitive guide for selecting and validating artifact removal techniques to ensure the fidelity of neural data.

The fundamental problem in EEG artifact removal is the spectral aliasing of neural and non-neural signals. Ocular blinks and saccades generate high-amplitude potentials in the 3–15 Hz range, which directly overlaps with the clinically crucial theta (4–8 Hz) and alpha (8–12 Hz) brain rhythms [88]. Similarly, electromyogenic (EMG) artifacts from facial, neck, and scalp muscles exhibit a broad frequency spectrum from 20 Hz up to 200 Hz, confounding the analysis of beta (12–30 Hz) and low-gamma activity [53]. This spectral entanglement makes simple frequency-based filtering ineffective, as it would result in the unacceptable loss of neurophysiologically relevant information.

The challenge is particularly acute in the context of wearable EEG systems, which are characterized by dry electrodes, uncontrolled environments, and low channel counts (often below 16) [23] [27]. These conditions amplify artifact intensity and limit the applicability of traditional source separation techniques like Independent Component Analysis (ICA), which perform better with high-density electrode arrays [23]. Consequently, advanced, adaptive algorithms capable of disentangling these overlapping signals are paramount for the reliable use of EEG in applications like pharmaco-EEG, where accurately quantifying drug-induced changes in brain rhythms is essential.

Performance Benchmarking of Artifact Removal Techniques

Quantitative Efficacy Across Methodologies

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Major Artifact Removal Techniques

Methodology	Target Artifact(s)	Key Performance Metrics	Reported Advantages	Reported Limitations
Independent Component Analysis (ICA) [23] [88]	Ocular, Muscular	Accuracy: ~71%, Selectivity: ~63% [27]	Effective for well-defined physiological sources; does not require reference channel.	Requires high channel count; manual component inspection is time-consuming.
Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR) [23] [27]	Ocular, Motion, Instrumental	High accuracy in detecting gross artifacts [27]	Suitable for real-time correction; handles large-amplitude, non-stationary artifacts.	Performance depends on clean calibration data; may distort neural signals if misconfigured.
Regression-Based (Time-Domain) [88]	Ocular	Similar performance to frequency-domain regression [88]	Simple, computationally efficient; well-established.	Requires a dedicated EOG reference channel; risk of over-correction.
Deep Learning (CLEnet) [53]	Muscular, Ocular, Mixed	SNR: 11.50 dB, CC: 0.925, RRMSEt: 0.300, RRMSEf: 0.319 (Mixed) [53]	End-to-end removal; handles unknown artifacts; suitable for multi-channel data.	Requires large, diverse datasets for training; computationally intensive.
State Space Models (SSM - M4) [6]	tACS, tRNS artifacts	Superior RRMSE and Correlation Coefficient for complex artifacts [6]	Excels at removing structured, non-physiological noise (e.g., stimulation artifacts).	Performance is stimulation-type dependent; complex model architecture.

Specialized Performance on Mixed Artifacts

Mixed artifacts, which involve the simultaneous occurrence of multiple artifact types (e.g., EOG + EMG), present a particularly difficult scenario. The superposition of their distinct temporal and spectral features can overwhelm algorithms designed for a single artifact class.

Table 2: Performance of Deep Learning Models on Mixed (EOG+EMG) Artifacts

Model	Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)	Correlation Coefficient (CC)	Temporal RRMSE	Spectral RRMSE
CLEnet [53]	11.50 dB	0.925	0.300	0.319
DuoCL [53]	10.95 dB	0.915	0.322	0.330
NovelCNN [53]	10.12 dB	0.901	0.355	0.341
1D-ResCNN [53]	9.87 dB	0.892	0.361	0.349

The data indicate that hybrid architectures like CLEnet, which integrate dual-scale CNNs for morphological feature extraction and LSTMs for temporal modeling, achieve superior performance in separating complex, mixed artifacts from the true neural signal [53]. The incorporation of an attention mechanism (EMA-1D) further enhances its ability to focus on relevant features across different scales.

Experimental Protocols for Method Validation

Protocol for Deep Learning Model Training (CLEnet)

The following protocol details the procedure for training and validating a deep learning model for multi-artifact removal, as described in [53].

Objective: To train an end-to-end deep neural network (CLEnet) for removing ocular, muscular, and mixed artifacts from multi-channel EEG data.

Workflow Overview:

Datasets:

• Semi-synthetic Dataset I: Clean EEG from EEGdenoiseNet is linearly mixed with recorded EOG and EMG signals at varying Signal-to-Noise Ratios (SNRs) to generate labeled training data [53].
• Semi-synthetic Dataset II: Clean EEG is mixed with Electrocardiogram (ECG) artifacts from the MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database to simulate cardiac interference [53].
• Real-world Dataset: 32-channel EEG data collected from subjects performing a 2-back task, containing unknown and mixed physiological artifacts [53].

Model Architecture & Training:

• Stage 1 (Morphological Feature Extraction): The contaminated EEG signal is processed through two parallel convolutional pathways with different kernel sizes (3 and 7) to capture features at multiple scales. An improved EMA-1D (Efficient Multi-scale Attention) module is embedded to weight important features and enhance temporal context [53].
• Stage 2 (Temporal Feature Extraction): The feature maps are flattened and passed through fully connected layers to reduce dimensionality. A Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network then processes the sequence to model long-range temporal dependencies inherent in EEG [53].
• Stage 3 (EEG Reconstruction): The output from the LSTM is fed through a final series of fully connected layers to reconstruct the artifact-free EEG signal [53].
• Loss Function: Mean Squared Error (MSE) between the model's output and the ground-truth clean EEG is used to train the network in a supervised manner [53].

Validation Metrics:

• Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) in decibels (dB).
• Correlation Coefficient (CC) between the cleaned and clean EEG.
• Relative Root Mean Square Error in the temporal (RRMSEt) and frequency (RRMSEf) domains [6] [53].

Protocol for Traditional Pipeline (ICA/Regression)

For contexts where deep learning is not feasible, traditional pipelines remain relevant.

Objective: To remove ocular artifacts using a combination of ICA and regression-based methods.

Procedure:

• Preprocessing: Raw EEG signals are bandpass filtered (e.g., 1–35 Hz) to remove slow drifts and high-frequency noise. Data can be re-referenced to a common average [52] [88].
• Artifact Template Identification:
  • ICA Approach: FASTICA algorithm decomposes the multi-channel EEG into independent components. Components corresponding to blinks are identified based on their topography (fronto-polar focus) and time course, then removed. The remaining components are projected back to the sensor space [52] [88].
  • Regression Approach: A calibration phase records spontaneous blinks via a dedicated EOG channel or frontal EEG electrodes (Fp1, Fp2). The algorithm estimates a subject-specific weight (β) representing the artifact's contribution to each EEG channel [88].
• Artifact Correction: In the regression method, the correction is applied by subtracting the scaled artifact template (β * EOG(t)) from each contaminated EEG channel in the time domain [88].

Table 3: Essential Resources for EEG Artifact Removal Research

Resource / Solution	Type	Function in Research	Exemplar Use Case
EEGdenoiseNet [53]	Benchmark Dataset	Provides clean EEG and artifact (EOG, EMG) recordings to create semi-synthetic data for controlled algorithm training and validation.	Model benchmarking and reproducibility.
FASTICA Algorithm [52]	Software Tool	A specific implementation of Independent Component Analysis for blind source separation of EEG signals.	Isolating and removing ocular and muscular components.
Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR) [23] [27]	Processing Pipeline	An adaptive, statistical method for detecting and reconstructing data segments contaminated by large-amplitude artifacts in real-time.	Cleaning motion artifacts in mobile EEG studies.
CLEnet Model [53]	Deep Learning Architecture	An end-to-end network combining CNNs, LSTM, and attention for robust removal of multiple artifact types from multi-channel EEG.	Handling complex, mixed artifacts in real-world data.
Radial Basis Function (RBF) Network [52]	Neural Network Model	Used for dynamic reconstruction of EEG signals and extraction of features related to underlying brain dynamics, potentially for analysis after artifact removal.	Signal reconstruction and feature analysis.

The efficacy of artifact removal pipelines is highly dependent on the specific artifact type and the context of the EEG recording. While traditional methods like ICA and regression are effective for well-defined ocular artifacts in controlled settings, the complexities of muscular and mixed artifacts—especially in wearable systems—increasingly demand the advanced capabilities of deep learning models like CLEnet and adaptive systems like ASR. The critical challenge of frequency overlap necessitates techniques that operate beyond simple filtering, leveraging spatial, temporal, and morphological features to discriminate between neural and artifactual signals. As EEG continues to gain traction in clinical trials and neurotherapeutic drug development, the rigorous benchmarking and standardized application of these artifact removal strategies will be fundamental to deriving accurate, reliable biomarkers of brain function and drug efficacy.

In the field of computational neuroscience, the conflict between neural signals and artifacts represents a critical challenge for brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) and clinical diagnostics. This challenge is fundamentally a problem of computational efficiency: how to extract meaningful neural information from data streams polluted by artifacts without prohibitive processing demands. The intrinsic frequency overlap between true neurophysiological signals and various artifacts complicates this task, as simple filtering often removes valuable data along with the noise. Research indicates that artifacts like ocular movements (typically below 4 Hz) and muscular activity (above 13 Hz) significantly overlap with the standard EEG frequency bands containing valuable neural information [23] [4]. This technical guide explores advanced computational frameworks and methodologies designed to optimize this balance, enabling robust neural signal analysis despite the constraints of power, latency, and hardware resources in both research and clinical settings.

Computational Frameworks for Efficient Neural Signal Processing

Compute-Communication Overlap Patterns

A powerful strategy for enhancing computational efficiency involves overlapping computation with communication processes. This approach is particularly valuable in distributed systems and GPU-accelerated deep learning applications for neural data analysis. The core principle involves concurrently executing processing tasks and data transfer operations to hide communication latency, thereby maximizing hardware utilization and minimizing overall processing time [89].

In practical terms, frameworks like Fully-Sharded Data Parallelism (FSDP) launch asynchronous all-reduce operations for gradients immediately after a layer's backward pass finishes, allowing subsequent layers to proceed with computation while previous gradients are communicated on separate hardware-supported streams [89]. Similarly, pipeline parallelism partitions models into stage chunks, with micro-batches pipelined such that while one batch is computing at stage i, its gradients or activations are communicated to stage i+1 [89]. The efficacy of these approaches is quantified through specific metrics:

• Overlap Ratio: The proportion of compute time overlapped with communication, bounded between 0 and 1 [89].
• Overlap Efficiency: The fraction of communication time hidden by overlap, also bounded between 0 and 1 [89].

Empirical results demonstrate that optimal overlap can reduce iteration times by up to 40%, though excessive overlap can introduce slowdowns of 18.9-40.0% due to resource contention in shared hardware components like memory controllers and DMA engines [89] [90].

Table 1: Overlap Strategy Performance Characteristics

Overlap Mechanism	Pattern Granularity	Typical Speedup	Key Trade-offs
Sequential	None (blocking)	Baseline	No resource contention
Operator decomposition	Medium (up to rank count)	Up to 1.2×	Increased latency per call
Tile-wise fusion	Fine (dozens-hundreds tiles)	Up to 1.66×	Poor cache utilization at small sizes
Dedicated hardware	Endpoint micro-chunks	1.12×–1.41×	Requires specialized hardware

Memristor-Based Neural Signal Analysis

For embedded BMI applications, memristor-based systems represent a paradigm shift from conventional von Neumann architecture. These systems leverage the bio-plausible characteristics of memristors to analyze neural signals directly in the analog domain, demonstrating nearly 400× improvements in power efficiency compared to state-of-the-art CMOS systems [91].

In one proof-of-concept implementation, researchers utilized memristor arrays to implement both a long-tap finite impulse response (FIR) filter bank for signal preprocessing and a perceptron neural network for decoding epilepsy-related brain activities. The system achieved a 93.46% accuracy in identifying epilepsy-related brain states (normal, interictal, and ictal) from local field potential signals by extracting frequency-based biomarkers from delta (0.5-4 Hz), theta (4-8 Hz), alpha (8-12 Hz), and beta (12-30 Hz) bands [91]. This approach is particularly valuable for addressing frequency overlap challenges, as it enables efficient filtering of neural signals in specific frequency bands without the computational overhead of digital conversion.

Table 2: Neural Signal Frequency Bands and Associated Functions

Frequency Band	Range (Hz)	Neural Functions	Artifact Challenges
Delta	0.5-4	Deep sleep, brain pathology	Overlaps with eye movement artifacts
Theta	4-8	Memory, navigation	Vulnerable to low-frequency drift
Alpha	8-12	Relaxed wakefulness	Affected by muscle artifacts
Beta	12-30	Motor behavior, focus	Overlaps with EMG contamination

Experimental Protocols for Artifact Management

Dictionary Learning for Stimulation Artifact Recovery

In intracranial recordings, electrical stimulation produces dominant artifacts that mask neural signals of interest. A robust protocol for recovering neural activity during concurrent stimulation involves dictionary learning through unsupervised clustering to create artifact templates [92].

Methodology:

• Data Acquisition: Record invasive electrophysiologic signals from human subjects during electrical stimulation using systems like Tucker Davis Technologies with sampling rates between 1221-48,828 Hz [92].
• Artifact Detection: Automatically detect templates of artifacts across multiple recording channels without channel-wise fine-tuning of the algorithm.
• Template Clustering: Apply unsupervised clustering algorithms (e.g., HDB-SCAN) to identify core artifact clusters while excluding outlier stimulation pulses.
• Template Subtraction: Subtract the best-matching artifact template from each individual artifact pulse to recover underlying neural activity.

This approach has successfully recovered meaningful neural signatures in both electrocorticographic (ECoG) arrays and deep brain stimulation (DBS) recordings, enabling comparison of cortical responses induced by stimulation of primary somatosensory cortex and natural peripheral touch [92].

Deep Learning-Based Artifact Removal

For EEG artifacts, deep learning architectures offer advanced artifact removal capabilities. The AnEEG network, for instance, implements a Long Short-Term Memory Generative Adversarial Network to eliminate artifacts while preserving neural information [4].

Methodology:

• Data Preparation: Utilize diverse EEG datasets containing various artifacts (ocular, muscle, powerline interference).
• Generator Training: Train an LSTM-based generator on raw EEG data to produce cleaned signals.
• Discriminator Training: Train a discriminator to differentiate between generated signals and ground-truth clean EEG.
• Adversarial Optimization: Iteratively refine both components until the generator produces artifact-free EEG that the discriminator cannot distinguish from clean data.

Performance is quantified using multiple metrics, including Normalized Mean Square Error (NMSE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Correlation Coefficient (CC), Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), and Signal-to-Artifact Ratio (SAR). This approach demonstrates superior performance compared to traditional methods like wavelet decomposition [4].

Visualization of Computational Workflows

Compute-Communication Overlap Architecture

Neural Signal Analysis with Artifact Processing Pipeline

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools for Computational Neural Signal Research

Tool/Platform	Function	Application Context
Memristor Arrays	Analog signal processing with high power efficiency	BMI systems for epilepsy detection and neural decoding [91]
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)	Deep learning-based artifact removal	EEG signal purification while preserving neural information [4]
Dictionary Learning	Template-based artifact subtraction	Intracranial recordings during electrical stimulation [92]
Compute-Communication Overlap	Hiding communication latency in distributed training	Large-scale neural network training for signal analysis [89] [90]
Finite Impulse Response (FIR) Filter Banks	Frequency-based signal separation	Extracting neural rhythms from contaminated signals [91]
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)	Blind source separation of neural signals	Artifact identification in wearable EEG systems [23]

Conclusion

The challenge of frequency overlap between neural signals and artifacts is a central problem in biomedical research, but the development of sophisticated, targeted methodologies is providing powerful solutions. The key takeaway is a paradigm shift from broad component subtraction to intelligent, artifact-specific reduction that preserves underlying neural activity. Deep learning models, particularly hybrid architectures like CLEnet, demonstrate superior performance in handling complex, multi-channel data and unknown artifacts. Looking forward, the integration of AI with real-time processing and auxiliary sensor data will be crucial for advancing wearable neurotechnology and reliable clinical BCIs. For drug development and clinical research, these advancements promise more accurate biomarkers, reduced false positives in neural effect detection, and ultimately, greater confidence in data-driven therapeutic discoveries. Future efforts must focus on creating standardized, transparent benchmarking frameworks and developing resource-efficient algorithms accessible for diverse research environments.

References

• 1. Optimizing EEG Signal Integrity: A Comprehensive Guide ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11505294/]
• 2. EEG Artifacts: Types, Detection, and Removal Techniques ... [https://www.bitbrain.com/blog/eeg-artifacts]
• 3. Qualitative and Quantitative Comparative Analysis of ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41042404/]
• 4. AnEEG: leveraging deep learning for effective artifact ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-75091-z]
• 5. an exploration of hyperparameter impact on sine samples ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746809425010584]
• 6. A deep learning approach to artifact removal in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030645222500990X]
• 7. Theta rhythm as a real-time quantitative marker for non- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12422121/]
• 8. Rhythmicity of neuronal oscillations delineates their cortical ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-024-06083-y]
• 9. The natural frequencies of the resting human brain [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192200492X]
• 10. Distinct Spectral Profiles of Awake Resting EEG in Disorders ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10771586/]
• 11. High-frequency brain activity and muscle artifacts in MEG/EEG [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3625857/]
• 12. Artifact characterization and removal for in vivo neural ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165027014000387]
• 13. Channel-independent recreation of artefactual signals in ... [https://braininformatics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40708-021-00149-x]
• 14. Improved EOG Artifact Removal Using Wavelet Enhanced ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6956025/]
• 15. Electrooculography Dataset for Objective Spatial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11961735/]
• 16. Common Methodology for Cardiac and Ocular Artifact ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5840220/]
• 17. The role of surface EMG in predicting responsiveness of ... [https://jneuroengrehab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12984-025-01757-y]
• 18. Turns-amplitude and power spectral analyses of surface ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010482525007814]
• 19. An Overview of ECG Artifact Detection in EEG Signals [https://www.organscigroup.com/articles/JCMC-12-322.php]
• 20. Application of spectral characteristics of electrocardiogram ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1636011/full]
• 21. Application of spectral characteristics of electrocardiogram ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12307459/]
• 22. Spectral feature modeling with graph signal processing for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06489-6]
• 23. A Systematic Review of Techniques for Artifact Detection ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12473706/]
• 24. Neural Network Visualization Empowers Visual Insights [https://www.roboearth.org/neural-network-visualization/]
• 25. A Survey on Advancements in Neural Signal Processing ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.00580v2]
• 26. Real-time, neural signal processing for high-density brain ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12275325/]
• 27. A Systematic Review of Techniques for Artifact Detection ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/18/5770]
• 28. Automatic Removal of Physiological Artifacts in OPM-MEG [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41149332/]
• 29. Feasibility of ADC histogram analysis for predicting of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11871475/]
• 30. U.S. Senators Propose "MIND Act" to Study and ... [https://www.dwt.com/blogs/privacy--security-law-blog/2025/10/senate-mind-act-neural-data-ftc-regulation]
• 31. Draft Guidelines on Data - https: //rm. coe. int [https://rm.coe.int/t-pd-2025-1-draft-guidelines-neuroscience-after-plenary-2025-september/4880287a0c]
• 32. Neurotechnology Privacy: Safeguarding the Next Frontier ... [https://trustarc.com/resource/neurotechnology-privacy-safeguarding-the-next-frontier-of-data/]
• 33. A Blind Source Separation Method Based on Bounded ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10575058/]
• 34. Independent Component Analysis - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/independent-component-analysis]
• 35. Comparison of ICA and PCA for hidden source separation. [https://www.wisdomlib.org/science/journal/world-journal-of-pharmaceutical-research/d/doc1372443.html]
• 36. The Development and Implementation of Innovative Blind ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117810/]
• 37. Measuring the accuracy of ICA-based artifact removal from ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X23019629]
• 38. A high performance hybrid LSTM CNN secure architecture ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-94500-5]
• 39. Exploring single-head and multi-head CNN and LSTM ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-10573-2]
• 40. A comparative study of RNN, CNN, LSTM and GRU for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0029801825017196]
• 41. CNN-LSTM Hybrid Model for AI-Driven Prediction of ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23879]
• 42. A novel EEG artifact removal algorithm based on an advanced ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12134218/]
• 43. EEG is better when cleaning effectively targets artifacts [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41092567/]
• 44. Artifact Identification and Mitigation Strategies for ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.07.23.25331987v1]
• 45. CLEEGN: A Convolutional Neural Network for Plug-and ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2210.05988v2]
• 46. Evaluation and comparison of most prevalent artifact reduction ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10406266/]
• 47. Single-channel EOG artifact removal using fixed frequency ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-10276-8]
• 48. EEG is better when cleaning effectively targets artifacts [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1388245725012301]
• 49. Removal of Artifacts from EEG Signals: A Review - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6427454/]
• 50. Motion Artifact Removal from EEG Signals Using the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746809425013886]
• 51. Simultaneous EEG-fMRI: FMRI Artifact Detection and ... [https://www.brainvoyager.com/bv/doc/UsersGuide/EMEGSuite/SimultaneousEEG-fMRIArtifactDetectionAndRemoval.html]
• 52. Dynamic reconstruction of electroencephalogram data using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11985760/]
• 53. A novel EEG artifact removal algorithm based on an ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-98653-1]
• 54. Optimal Multichannel Artifact Prediction and Removal for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7379342/]
• 55. $$A^{2}$$ DM: Enhancing EEG Artifact Removal by Fusing ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12559-025-10442-0]
• 56. A Deep Lightweight Convolutional Neural Network for ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.10.28.25338681v1.full]
• 57. Why Brain Wearables Are Making Traditional EEG Labs ... [https://globalrph.com/2025/10/why-brain-wearables-are-making-traditional-eeg-labs-obsolete-in-2025/]
• 58. Time–frequency domain machine learning for detection of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1746809424010991]
• 59. Integrating sEMG and IMU Sensors in an e-Textile Smart ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/14/4717]
• 60. Mechanoacoustic sensing of physiological processes and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7035153/]
• 61. CM-FusionNet: A cross-modal fusion fatigue detection ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045790625001478]
• 62. Mastering Artifact Removal in BCIs [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/mastering-artifact-removal-in-bcis]
• 63. Editorial: Neural signals acquisition and intelligent analysis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10400318/]
• 64. Benchmarking of hyperparameter optimization techniques ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666912922000265]
• 65. Validation of Cleaning Processes (7/93) [https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/inspection-guides/validation-cleaning-processes-793]
• 66. Cleaning Validation: Protocol & Guidelines [https://safetyculture.com/topics/cleaning-validation]
• 67. Cleaning validation protocol for pharmaceutical industry [https://www.gmpsop.com/cleaning-validation-protocol/]
• 68. Set-up of an experimental protocol to analyse physiological ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198225002258]
• 69. Signal-to-noise ratio [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio]
• 70. What is Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)? The Key to Clear ... [https://resources.l-p.com/glossary/snr-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-its-impact-on-signal-quality]
• 71. What is Signal to Noise Ratio and How to calculate it? [https://resources.pcb.cadence.com/blog/2020-what-is-signal-to-noise-ratio-and-how-to-calculate-it]
• 72. Signal-to-Noise Ratio - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/signal-to-noise-ratio]
• 73. Pearson correlation coefficient [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_correlation_coefficient]
• 74. How to find the Relative Root Mean Square Error ... [https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/2091226-how-to-find-the-relative-root-mean-square-error-for-the-given-data]
• 75. Relative Root Mean Squared Error (RRMSE) [https://gist.github.com/AayushSameerShah/baeedbbb52fe808874d6debb7e786183]
• 76. Is there something like a Root Mean Square Relative Error ... [https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/413209/is-there-something-like-a-root-mean-square-relative-error-rmsre-or-what-is-t]
• 77. Independent component analysis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_component_analysis]
• 78. Independent component analysis: recent advances - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3538438/]
• 79. Deep Learning vs. Traditional Machine Learning: Which is ... [https://www.alliancetek.com/blog/post/2025/03/11/deep-learning-vs-traditional-ml.aspx]
• 80. EEG artifact elimination by extraction of ICA-component ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165027015000370]
• 81. Evaluating the effectiveness of artifact correction and rejection ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10516012/]
• 82. Comparative analysis of deep learning and traditional ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-16553-w]
• 83. ABOT: an open-source online benchmarking tool for machine ... [https://braininformatics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40708-022-00167-3]
• 84. Recommendations for the creation of benchmark datasets for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11473745/]
• 85. Building Benchmark Datasets to Drive Innovation in ... [https://www.renaissancephilanthropy.org/news-and-insights/building-benchmark-datasets-to-drive-innovation-in-education]
• 86. Application of a 1H brain MRS benchmark dataset to deep ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12007519/]
• 87. A Large-Scale Dataset and Benchmark for Fine-Grained ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.10260v1]
• 88. Optimizing EEG Signal Integrity: A Comprehensive Guide ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5354/11/10/1018]
• 89. Compute-Communication Overlap Patterns [https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/compute-communication-overlap-patterns]
• 90. Characterizing Compute-Communication Overlap in GPU ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2507.03114v1]
• 91. Neural signal analysis with memristor arrays towards high- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18105-4]
• 92. Signal recovery from stimulation artifacts in intracranial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7333778/]