Comment on “Performance of different synchronization measures in real data: A case study on electroencephalographic signals”

Abstract

We agree with Duckrow and Albano [Phys. Rev. E 67, 063901 (2003)] and Quian Quiroga [Phys. Rev. E 67, 063902 (2003)] that mutual information (MI) is a useful measure of dependence for electroencephalogram (EEG) data, but we show that the improvement seen in the performance of MI on extracting dependence trends from EEG is more dependent on the type of MI estimator rather than any embedding technique used. In an independent study we conducted in search for an optimal MI estimator, and in particular for EEG applications, we examined the performance of a number of MI estimators on the data set used by Quian Quiroga in their original study, where the performance of different dependence measures on real data was investigated [Phys. Rev. E 65, 041903 (2002)]. We show that for EEG applications the best performance among the investigated estimators is achieved by -nearest neighbors, which supports the conjecture by Quian Quiroga in Phys. Rev. E 67, 063902 (2003) that the nearest neighbor estimator is the most precise method for estimating MI.