Literature DB >> 12881663

MEG and EEG in epilepsy.

Gregory L Barkley1, Christoph Baumgartner.   

Abstract

Both EEG and magnetoencephalogram (MEG), with a time resolution of 1 ms or less, provide unique neurophysiologic data not obtainable by other neuroimaging techniques. MEG has now emerged as a mature clinical technology. While both EEG and MEG can be performed with more than 100 channels, MEG recordings with 100 to 300 channels are more easily done because of the time needed to apply a large number of EEG electrodes. EEG has the advantage of the long-term video EEG recordings, which facilitates extensive temporal sampling across all periods of the sleep/wake cycle. MEG and EEG seem to complement each other for the detection of interictal epileptiform discharges, because some spikes can be recorded only on MEG but not on EEG and vice versa. Most studies indicate that MEG seems to be more sensitive for neocortical spike sources. Both EEG and MEG source localizations show excellent agreement with invasive electrical recordings, clarify the spatial relationship between the irritative zone and structural lesions, and finally, attribute epileptic activity to lobar subcompartments in temporal lobe and to a lesser extent in extratemporal epilepsies. In temporal lobe epilepsy, EEG and MEG can differentiate between patients with mesial, lateral, and diffuse seizure onsets. MEG selectively detects tangential sources. EEG measures both radial and tangential activity, although the radial components dominate the EEG signals at the scalp. Thus, while EEG provides more comprehensive information, it is more complicated to model due to considerable influences of the shape and conductivity of the volume conductor. Dipole localization techniques favor MEG due to the higher accuracy of MEG source localization compared to EEG when using the standard spherical head shape model. However, if special care is taken to address the above issues and enhance the EEG, the localization accuracy of EEG and MEG actually are comparable, although these surface EEG analytic techniques are not typically approved for clinical use in the United States. MEG dipole analysis is approved for clinical use and thus gives information that otherwise usually requires invasive intracranial EEG monitoring. There are only a few dozen whole head MEG units in operation in the world. While EEG is available in every hospital, specialized EEG laboratories capable of source localization techniques are nearly as scarce as MEG facilities. The combined use of whole-head MEG systems and multichannel EEG in conjunction with advanced source modeling techniques is an area of active development and will allow a better noninvasive characterization of the irritative zone in presurgical epilepsy evaluation. Finally, additional information on epilepsy may be gathered by either MEG or EEG analysis of data beyond the usual bandwidths used in clinical practice, namely by analysis of activity at high frequencies and near-DC activity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12881663     DOI: 10.1097/00004691-200305000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0736-0258            Impact factor:   2.177


  35 in total

1.  Mapping the signal-to-noise-ratios of cortical sources in magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography.

Authors:  Daniel M Goldenholz; Seppo P Ahlfors; Matti S Hämäläinen; Dahlia Sharon; Mamiko Ishitobi; Lucia M Vaina; Steven M Stufflebeam
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  sLORETA allows reliable distributed source reconstruction based on subdural strip and grid recordings.

Authors:  Matthias Dümpelmann; Tonio Ball; Andreas Schulze-Bonhage
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Recording Brain Electromagnetic Activity During the Administration of the Gaseous Anesthetic Agents Xenon and Nitrous Oxide in Healthy Volunteers.

Authors:  Andria Pelentritou; Levin Kuhlmann; John Cormack; Will Woods; Jamie Sleigh; David Liley
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-01-13       Impact factor: 1.355

4.  Interrater Reliability of Experts in Identifying Interictal Epileptiform Discharges in Electroencephalograms.

Authors:  Jin Jing; Aline Herlopian; Ioannis Karakis; Marcus Ng; Jonathan J Halford; Alice Lam; Douglas Maus; Fonda Chan; Marjan Dolatshahi; Carlos F Muniz; Catherine Chu; Valeria Sacca; Jay Pathmanathan; WenDong Ge; Haoqi Sun; Justin Dauwels; Andrew J Cole; Daniel B Hoch; Sydney S Cash; M Brandon Westover
Journal:  JAMA Neurol       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 18.302

5.  An assessment of MEG coherence imaging in the study of temporal lobe epilepsy.

Authors:  Kost Elisevich; Neetu Shukla; John E Moran; Brien Smith; Lonni Schultz; Karen Mason; Gregory L Barkley; Norman Tepley; Valentina Gumenyuk; Susan M Bowyer
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 5.864

6.  Clinical evidence for the utility of movement compensation algorithm in magnetoencephalography: successful localization during focal seizure.

Authors:  Yosuke Kakisaka; Zhong I Wang; John C Mosher; Anne-Sophie Dubarry; Andreas V Alexopoulos; Rei Enatsu; Prakash Kotagal; Richard C Burgess
Journal:  Epilepsy Res       Date:  2012-04-14       Impact factor: 3.045

7.  Magnetoencephalography reveals a unique neurophysiological profile of focal-onset epileptic spasms.

Authors:  Yosuke Kakisaka; Ajay Gupta; Rei Enatsu; Zhong I Wang; Andreas V Alexopoulos; John C Mosher; Anne-Sophie Dubarry; Naomi Hino-Fukuyo; Richard C Burgess
Journal:  Tohoku J Exp Med       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.848

Review 8.  The use of neuroimaging to study behavior in patients with epilepsy.

Authors:  Carrie R McDonald
Journal:  Epilepsy Behav       Date:  2007-12-19       Impact factor: 2.937

9.  MEG Coherence and DTI Connectivity in mTLE.

Authors:  Mohammad-Reza Nazem-Zadeh; Susan M Bowyer; John E Moran; Esmaeil Davoodi-Bojd; Andrew Zillgitt; Barbara J Weiland; Hassan Bagher-Ebadian; Fariborz Mahmoudi; Kost Elisevich; Hamid Soltanian-Zadeh
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 3.020

10.  Investigating neuromagnetic brain responses against chromatic flickering stimuli by wavelet entropies.

Authors:  Mayank Bhagat; Chitresh Bhushan; Goutam Saha; Shinsuke Shimjo; Katsumi Watanabe; Joydeep Bhattacharya
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-09-25       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.