Article

Monte Carlo simulation studies of EEG and MEG localization accuracy

Massachusetts General Hospital, NMR Center, Building 149, 13th Street, Charlestown, MA 02129, USA.
Human Brain Mapping (Impact Factor: 6.92). 01/2002; 16(1):47-62. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.10024
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Both electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) are currently used to localize brain activity. The accuracy of source localization depends on numerous factors, including the specific inverse approach and source model, fundamental differences in EEG and MEG data, and the accuracy of the volume conductor model of the head (i.e., the forward model). Using Monte Carlo simulations, this study removes the effect of forward model errors and theoretically compares the use of EEG alone, MEG alone, and combined EEG/MEG data sets for source localization. Here, we use a linear estimation inverse approach with a distributed source model and a realistic forward head model. We evaluated its accuracy using the crosstalk and point spread metrics. The crosstalk metric for a specified location on the cortex describes the amount of activity incorrectly localized onto that location from other locations. The point spread metric provides the complementary measure: for that same location, the point spread describes the mis-localization of activity from that specified location to other locations in the brain. We also propose and examine the utility of a "noise sensitivity normalized" inverse operator. Given our particular forward and inverse models, our results show that 1) surprisingly, EEG localization is more accurate than MEG localization for the same number of sensors averaged over many source locations and orientations; 2) as expected, combining EEG with MEG produces the best accuracy for the same total number of sensors; 3) the noise sensitivity normalized inverse operator improves the spatial resolution relative to the standard linear estimation operator; and 4) use of an a priori fMRI constraint universally reduces both crosstalk and point spread.

0 Followers
 · 
111 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although a crucial role of the fusiform gyrus (FG) in face processing has been demonstrated with a variety of methods, converging evidence suggests that face processing involves an interactive and overlapping processing cascade in distributed brain areas. Here we examine the spatio-temporal stages and their functional tuning to face inversion, presence and configuration of inner features, and face contour in healthy subjects during passive viewing. Anatomically-constrained magnetoencephalography (aMEG) combines high-density whole-head MEG recordings and distributed source modeling with high-resolution structural MRI. Each person's reconstructed cortical surface served to constrain noise-normalized minimum norm inverse source estimates. The earliest activity was estimated to the occipital cortex at ~100 ms after stimulus onset and was sensitive to an initial coarse level visual analysis. Activity in the right-lateralized ventral temporal area (inclusive of the FG) peaked at ~160 ms and was largest to inverted faces. Images containing facial features in the veridical and rearranged configuration irrespective of the facial outline elicited intermediate level activity. The M160 stage may provide structural representations necessary for downstream distributed areas to process identity and emotional expression. However, inverted faces additionally engaged the left ventral temporal area at ~180 ms and were uniquely subserved by bilateral processing. This observation is consistent with the dual route model and spared processing of inverted faces in prosopagnosia. The subsequent deflection, peaking at ~240 ms in the anterior temporal areas bilaterally, was largest to normal, upright faces. It may reflect initial engagement of the distributed network subserving individuation and familiarity. These results support dynamic models suggesting that processing of unfamiliar faces in the absence of a cognitive task is subserved by a distributed and interactive neural circuit.
    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 11/2014; 8:868. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00868 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Network theory and inverse modeling are two standard tools of applied physics, whose combination is needed when studying the dynamical organization of spatially distributed systems from indirect measurements. However, the associated connectivity estimation may be affected by spatial leakage, an artifact of inverse modeling that limits the interpretability of network analysis. This paper investigates general analytical aspects pertaining to this issue. First, the existence of spatial leakage is derived from the topological structure of inverse operators. Then, the geometry of spatial leakage is modeled and used to define a geometric correction scheme, which limits spatial leakage effects in connectivity estimation. Finally, this new approach for network analysis is compared analytically to existing methods based on linear regressions, which are shown to yield biased coupling estimates.
    Physical Review E 01/2015; 91(01). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevE.91.012823 · 2.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Behavioral responses to visual stimuli exhibit visual field asymmetries, but cortical folding and the close proximity of visual cortical areas make electrophysiological comparisons between different stimulus locations problematic. Retinotopy-constrained source estimation (RCSE) uses distributed dipole models simultaneously constrained by multiple stimulus locations to provide separation between individual visual areas that is not possible with conventional source estimation methods. Magnetoencephalography and RCSE were used to estimate time courses of activity in V1, V2, V3, and V3A. Responses to left and right hemifield stimuli were not significantly different. Peak latencies for peripheral stimuli were significantly shorter than those for perifoveal stimuli in V1, V2, and V3A, likely related to the greater proportion of magnocellular input to V1 in the periphery. Consistent with previous results, sensor magnitudes for lower field stimuli were about twice as large as for upper field, which is only partially explained by the proximity to sensors for lower field cortical sources in V1, V2, and V3. V3A exhibited both latency and amplitude differences for upper and lower field responses. There were no differences for V3, consistent with previous suggestions that dorsal and ventral V3 are two halves of a single visual area, rather than distinct areas V3 and VP. © 2014 ARVO.
    Journal of Vision 12/2014; 14(14). DOI:10.1167/14.14.13 · 2.73 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
55 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014