brainlife.io: A decentralized and open source cloud platform to support neuroscience research
Authors:
Soichi Hayashi,
Bradley A. Caron,
Anibal Sólon Heinsfeld,
Sophia Vinci-Booher,
Brent McPherson,
Daniel N. Bullock,
Giulia Bertò,
Guiomar Niso,
Sandra Hanekamp,
Daniel Levitas,
Kimberly Ray,
Anne MacKenzie,
Lindsey Kitchell,
Josiah K. Leong,
Filipi Nascimento-Silva,
Serge Koudoro,
Hanna Willis,
Jasleen K. Jolly,
Derek Pisner,
Taylor R. Zuidema,
Jan W. Kurzawski,
Kyriaki Mikellidou,
Aurore Bussalb,
Christopher Rorden,
Conner Victory
, et al. (39 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Neuroscience research has expanded dramatically over the past 30 years by advancing standardization and tool development to support rigor and transparency. Consequently, the complexity of the data pipeline has also increased, hindering access to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperabile, and Reusable) data analysis to portions of the worldwide research community. brainlife.io was developed to red…
▽ More
Neuroscience research has expanded dramatically over the past 30 years by advancing standardization and tool development to support rigor and transparency. Consequently, the complexity of the data pipeline has also increased, hindering access to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperabile, and Reusable) data analysis to portions of the worldwide research community. brainlife.io was developed to reduce these burdens and democratize modern neuroscience research across institutions and career levels. Using community software and hardware infrastructure, the platform provides open-source data standardization, management, visualization, and processing and simplifies the data pipeline. brainlife.io automatically tracks the provenance history of thousands of data objects, supporting simplicity, efficiency, and transparency in neuroscience research. Here brainlife.io's technology and data services are described and evaluated for validity, reliability, reproducibility, replicability, and scientific utility. Using data from 4 modalities and 3,200 participants, we demonstrate that brainlife.io's services produce outputs that adhere to best practices in modern neuroscience research.
△ Less
Submitted 11 August, 2023; v1 submitted 3 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
A framework for the comparison of different EEG acquisition solutions
Authors:
Aurore Bussalb,
Marie Prat,
David Ojeda,
Quentin Barthélemy,
Julien Bonnaud,
Louis Mayaud
Abstract:
The purpose of this work is to propose a framework for the benchmarking of EEG amplifiers, headsets, and electrodes providing objective recommendation for a given application. The framework covers: data collection paradigm, data analysis, and statistical framework. To illustrate, data was collected from 12 different devices totaling up to 6 subjects per device. Two data acquisition protocols were…
▽ More
The purpose of this work is to propose a framework for the benchmarking of EEG amplifiers, headsets, and electrodes providing objective recommendation for a given application. The framework covers: data collection paradigm, data analysis, and statistical framework. To illustrate, data was collected from 12 different devices totaling up to 6 subjects per device. Two data acquisition protocols were implemented: a resting-state protocol eyes-open (EO) and eyes-closed (EC), and an Auditory Evoked Potential (AEP) protocol. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) on alpha band (EO/EC) and Event Related Potential (ERP) were extracted as objective quantification of physiologically meaningful information. Then, visual representation, univariate statistical analysis, and multivariate model were performed to increase results interpretability. Objective criteria show that the spectral SNR in alpha does not provide much discrimination between systems, suggesting that the acquisition quality might not be of primary importance for spectral and specifically alpha-based applications. On the contrary, AEP SNR proved much more variable stressing the importance of the acquisition setting for ERP experiments. The multivariate analysis identified some individuals and some systems as independent statistically significant contributors to the SNR. It highlights the importance of inter-individual differences in neurophysiological experiments (sample size) and suggests some device might objectively be superior to others when it comes to ERP recordings. However, the illustration of the proposed benchmarking framework suffers from severe limitations including small sample size and sound card jitter in the auditory stimulations. While these limitations hinders a definite ranking of the evaluated hardware, we believe the proposed benchmarking framework to be a modest yet valuable contribution to the field.
△ Less
Submitted 4 October, 2018;
originally announced October 2018.
