Electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) are non-invasive electrophysiological methods, which record electric potentials and magnetic fields due to electric currents in synchronously-active neurons. With MEG being more sensitive to neural activity from tangential currents and EEG being able to detect both radial and tangential sources, the two methods are complementary. Over the years, neurophysiological studies have changed considerably: high-density recordings are becoming de rigueur; there is interest in both spontaneous and evoked activity; and sophisticated artifact detection and removal methods are available. Improved head models for source estimation have also increased the precision of the current estimates, particularly for EEG and combined EEG/MEG. Because of their complementarity, more investigators are beginning to perform simultaneous EEG/MEG studies to gain more complete information about neural activity. Given the increase in methodological complexity in EEG/MEG, it is important to gather data that are of high quality and that are as artifact free as possible. Here, we discuss some issues in data acquisition and analysis of EEG and MEG data. Practical considerations for different types of EEG and MEG studies are also discussed.

This deceptively simple, but nevertheless clever, event-related fMRI study in healthy subjects identified brain activation associated with communicative intent i.e. such as calling a name (auditory), or by making eye contact (visual) in an incidental experimental manipulation. Common activation in the bilateral temporal poles and the paracingulate cortex was observed, suggesting that these regions may be crucial for identifying the initial stages in a social interaction, irrespective of the input modality. Importantly, these activations were not affected by arousal, as indexed by no changes in measured pupil diameter, as compared to reliable changes elicited to infrequent target stimuli that served to focus the subject's attention.

Good scientific practice (GSP) refers to both explicit and implicit rules, recommendations, and guidelines that help scientists to produce work that is of the highest quality at any given time, and to efficiently share that work with the community for further scrutiny or utilization. For experimental research using magneto- and electroencephalography (MEEG), GSP includes specific standards and guidelines for technical competence, which are periodically updated and adapted to new findings. However, GSP also needs to be regularly revisited in a broader light. At the LiveMEEG 2020 conference, a reflection on GSP was fostered that included explicitly documented guidelines and technical advances, but also emphasized intangible GSP: a general awareness of personal, organizational, and societal realities and how they can influence MEEG research. This article provides an extensive report on most of the LiveMEEG contributions and new literature, with the additional aim to synthesize ongoing cultural changes in GSP. It first covers GSP with respect to cognitive biases and logical fallacies, pre-registration as a tool to avoid those and other early pitfalls, and a number of resources to enable collaborative and reproducible research as a general approach to minimize misconceptions. Second, it covers GSP with respect to data acquisition, analysis, reporting, and sharing, including new tools and frameworks to support collaborative work. Finally, GSP is considered in light of ethical implications of MEEG research and the resulting responsibility that scientists have to engage with societal challenges. Considering among other things the benefits of peer review and open access at all stages, the need to coordinate larger international projects, the complexity of MEEG subject matter, and today's prioritization of fairness, privacy, and the environment, we find that current GSP tends to favor collective and cooperative work, for both scientific and for societal reasons.

Whether the brain operates at a critical “tipping” point is a long standing scientific question, with evidence from both cellular and systems-scale studies suggesting that the brain does sit in, or near, a critical regime. Neuroimaging studies of humans in altered states of consciousness have prompted the suggestion that maintenance of critical dynamics is necessary for the emergence of consciousness and complex cognition, and that reduced or disorganized consciousness may be associated with deviations from criticality. Unfortunately, many of the cellular-level studies reporting signs of criticality were performed in non-conscious systems (in vitro neuronal cultures) or unconscious animals (e.g. anaesthetized rats). Here we attempted to address this knowledge gap by exploring critical brain dynamics in invasive ECoG recordings from multiple sessions with a single macaque as the animal transitioned from consciousness to unconsciousness under different anaesthetics (ketamine and propofol). We use a previously-validated test of criticality: avalanche dynamics to assess the differences in brain dynamics between normal consciousness and both drug-states. Propofol and ketamine were selected due to their differential effects on consciousness (ketamine, but not propofol, is known to induce an unusual state known as “dissociative anaesthesia”). Our analyses indicate that propofol dramatically restricted the size and duration of avalanches, while ketamine allowed for more awake-like dynamics to persist. In addition, propofol, but not ketamine, triggered a large reduction in the complexity of brain dynamics. All states, however, showed some signs of persistent criticality when testing for exponent relations and universal shape-collapse. Further, maintenance of critical brain dynamics may be important for regulation and control of conscious awareness.