Evaluating and Comparing Measures of Aperiodic Neural Activity

Neuro-electrophysiological recordings contain prominent aperiodic activity - meaning irregular activity, with no characteristic frequency - which has variously been referred to as 1/f (or 1/f-like activity), fractal, or 'scale-free' activity. Previous work has established that aperiodic features of neural activity is dynamic and variable, relating (between subjects) to healthy aging and to clinical diagnoses, and also (within subjects) tracking conscious states and behavioral performance. There are, however, a wide variety of conceptual frameworks and associated methods for the analyses and interpretation of aperiodic activity - for example, time domain measures such as the autocorrelation, fractal measures, and/or various complexity and entropy measures, as well as measures of the aperiodic exponent in the frequency domain. There is a lack of clear understanding of how these different measures relate to each other and to what extent they reflect the same or different properties of the data, which makes it difficult to synthesize results across approaches and complicates our overall understanding of the properties, biological significance, and demographic, clinical, and behavioral correlates of aperiodic neural activity. To address this problem, in this project we systematically survey the different approaches for measuring aperiodic neural activity, starting with an automated literature analysis to curate a collection of the most common methods. We then evaluate and compare these methods, using statistically representative time series simulations. In doing so, we establish consistent relationships between the measures, showing that much of what they capture reflects shared variance - though with some notable idiosyncrasies. Broadly, frequency domain methods are more specific to aperiodic features of the data, whereas time domain measures are more impacted by oscillatory activity. We extend this analysis by applying the measures to a series of empirical EEG and iEEG datasets, replicating the simulation results. We conclude by summarizing the relationships between the multiple methods, emphasizing opportunities for reexamining previous findings and for future work.