@article {VanRullen061283, author = {Rufin VanRullen}, title = {How to evaluate phase differences between trial groups in ongoing electrophysiological signals}, elocation-id = {061283}, year = {2016}, doi = {10.1101/061283}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory}, abstract = {A growing number of studies endeavor to reveal periodicities in sensory and cognitive functions, by comparing the distribution of ongoing (pre-stimulus) oscillatory phases between two (or more) trial groups reflecting distinct experimental outcomes. A systematic relation between the phase of spontaneous electrophysiological signals, before a stimulus is even presented, and the eventual result of sensory or cognitive processing for that stimulus, would be indicative of an intrinsic periodicity in the underlying neural process. Prior studies of phase-dependent perception have used a variety of analytical methods to measure and evaluate phase differences, and there is currently no established standard practice in this field. The present report intends to remediate this need, by systematically comparing the statistical power of various measures of {\textquotedblleft}phase opposition{\textquotedblright} between two trial groups, in a number of real and simulated experimental situations. Seven measures were evaluated: one parametric test (circular Watson-Williams test), and three distinct measures of phase opposition (phase bifurcation index, phase opposition sum and phase opposition product) combined with two procedures for non-parametric statistical testing (permutation, or a combination of z-score and permutation). While these are obviously not the only existing or conceivable measures, they have all been used in recent studies. All tested methods performed adequately on a previously published dataset (Busch, Dubois \& VanRullen, 2009). On a variety of artificially constructed datasets, no single measure was found to surpass all others, but instead the suitability of each measure was contingent on several experimental factors: the time, frequency and depth of oscillatory phase modulation; the absolute and relative amplitudes of post-stimulus event-related potentials for the two trial groups; the absolute and relative trial numbers for the two groups; and the number of permutations used for non-parametric testing. The concurrent use of two phase opposition measures, the parametric Watson-Williams test and a non-parametric test based on summing inter-trial coherence values for the two trial groups, appears to provide the most satisfactory outcome in all situations tested. Matlab code is provided to automatically compute these phase opposition measures.}, URL = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/29/061283}, eprint = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/29/061283.full.pdf}, journal = {bioRxiv} }