Literature DB >> 15083526

Multimodal integration of EEG and MEG data: a simulation study with variable signal-to-noise ratio and number of sensors.

Fabio Babiloni1, Claudio Babiloni, Filippo Carducci, Gian Luca Romani, Paolo M Rossini, Leonardo M Angelone, Febo Cincotti.   

Abstract

Previous simulation studies have stressed the importance of the multimodal integration of electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) data in the estimation of cortical current density. In such studies, no systematic variations of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and of the number of sensors were explicitly taken into account in the estimation process. We investigated effects of variable SNR and number of sensors on the accuracy of current density estimate by using multimodal EEG and MEG data. This was done by using as the dependent variable both the correlation coefficient (CC) and the relative error (RE) between imposed and estimated waveforms at the level of cortical region of interests (ROI). A realistic head and cortical surface model was used. Factors used in the simulations were: (1). the SNR of the simulated scalp data (with seven levels: infinite, 30, 20, 10, 5, 3, 1); (2). the particular inverse operator used to estimate the cortical source activity from the simulated scalp data (INVERSE, with two levels, including minimum norm and weighted minimum norm); and (3). the number of EEG or MEG sensors employed in the analysis (SENSORS, with three levels: 128, 61, 29 for EEG and 153, 61, or 38 in MEG). Analysis of variance demonstrated that all the considered factors significantly affect the CC and the RE indexes. Combined EEG-MEG data produced statistically significant lower RE and higher CC in source current density reconstructions compared to that estimated by the EEG and MEG data considered separately. These observations hold for the range of SNR values presented by the analyzed data. The superiority of current density estimation by multimodal integration of EEG and MEG was not due to differences in number of sensors between unimodal (EEG, MEG) and combined (EEG-MEG) inverse estimates. In fact, the current density estimate relative to the EEG-MEG multimodal integration involved 61 EEG plus 63 MEG sensors, whereas estimations carried out with the single modalities alone involved 128 sensors for EEG and 153 sensors for MEG. The results of the simulations also suggest that the use of simultaneous 29 EEG sensors during the MEG measurements carried out with full sensor arrangements (153 sensors) returned an accuracy of the cortical source estimate statistically similar to that obtained by combining 64 EEG and 153 MEG sensors. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15083526      PMCID: PMC6872116          DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp        ISSN: 1065-9471            Impact factor:   5.038


  20 in total

1.  Visualization of magnetoencephalographic data using minimum current estimates.

Authors:  K Uutela; M Hämäläinen; E Somersalo
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Evidence for dissociation of spatial and nonspatial auditory information processing.

Authors:  I Anourova; V V Nikouline; R J Ilmoniemi; J Hotta; H J Aronen; S Carlson
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  Monte Carlo simulation studies of EEG and MEG localization accuracy.

Authors:  Arthur K Liu; Anders M Dale; John W Belliveau
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Linear inverse source estimate of combined EEG and MEG data related to voluntary movements.

Authors:  F Babiloni; F Carducci; F Cincotti; C Del Gratta; V Pizzella; G L Romani; P M Rossini; F Tecchio; C Babiloni
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Improved Localizadon of Cortical Activity by Combining EEG and MEG with MRI Cortical Surface Reconstruction: A Linear Approach.

Authors:  A M Dale; M I Sereno
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Roles of attention, memory, and motor preparation in modulating human brain activity in a spatial working memory task.

Authors:  Y C Okada; S Salenius
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  1998 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.357

7.  A Bayesian approach to introducing anatomo-functional priors in the EEG/MEG inverse problem.

Authors:  S Baillet; L Garnero
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 4.538

8.  MEG predicts epileptic zone in lesional extrahippocampal epilepsy: 12 pediatric surgery cases.

Authors:  H Otsubo; A Ochi; I Elliott; S H Chuang; J T Rutka; V Jay; M Aung; D F Sobel; O C Snead
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.864

9.  Comparison of minimum current estimate and dipole modeling in the analysis of simulated activity in the human visual cortices.

Authors:  Linda Stenbacka; Simo Vanni; Kimmo Uutela; Riitta Hari
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Benefit of simultaneous recording of EEG and MEG in dipole localization.

Authors:  Harumi Yoshinaga; Tomoyuki Nakahori; Yoko Ohtsuka; Eiji Oka; Yoshihiro Kitamura; Hideki Kiriyama; Kazumasa Kinugasa; Keiichi Miyamoto; Toru Hoshida
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.864

View more
  19 in total

1.  Increasing the accuracy of electromagnetic inverses using functional area source correlation constraints.

Authors:  Benoit R Cottereau; Justin M Ales; Anthony M Norcia
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  Motor-related cortical dynamics to intact movements in tetraplegics as revealed by high-resolution EEG.

Authors:  Donatella Mattia; Febo Cincotti; Marco Mattiocco; Giorgio Scivoletto; Maria Grazia Marciani; Fabio Babiloni
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  A novel integrated MEG and EEG analysis method for dipolar sources.

Authors:  Ming-Xiong Huang; Tao Song; Donald J Hagler; Igor Podgorny; Veikko Jousmaki; Li Cui; Kathleen Gaa; Deborah L Harrington; Anders M Dale; Roland R Lee; Jeff Elman; Eric Halgren
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2007-06-14       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  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

5.  Noninvasive Electromagnetic Source Imaging and Granger Causality Analysis: An Electrophysiological Connectome (eConnectome) Approach.

Authors:  Abbas Sohrabpour; Shuai Ye; Gregory A Worrell; Wenbo Zhang; Bin He
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 4.538

6.  Effects of reconstructed magnetic field from sparse noisy boundary measurements on localization of active neural source.

Authors:  Hui-min Shen; Kok-Meng Lee; Liang Hu; Shaohui Foong; Xin Fu
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 2.602

7.  Wearable neuroimaging: Combining and contrasting magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography.

Authors:  Elena Boto; Zelekha A Seedat; Niall Holmes; James Leggett; Ryan M Hill; Gillian Roberts; Vishal Shah; T Mark Fromhold; Karen J Mullinger; Tim M Tierney; Gareth R Barnes; Richard Bowtell; Matthew J Brookes
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Estimation of effective and functional cortical connectivity from neuroelectric and hemodynamic recordings.

Authors:  Laura Astolfi; F De Vico Fallani; F Cincotti; D Mattia; M G Marciani; S Salinari; J Sweeney; G A Miller; B He; F Babiloni
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 3.802

9.  Reproducibility of EEG-MEG fusion source analysis of interictal spikes: Relevance in presurgical evaluation of epilepsy.

Authors:  Rasheda Arman Chowdhury; Giovanni Pellegrino; Ümit Aydin; Jean-Marc Lina; François Dubeau; Eliane Kobayashi; Christophe Grova
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 10.  How to use fMRI functional localizers to improve EEG/MEG source estimation.

Authors:  Benoit R Cottereau; Justin M Ales; Anthony M Norcia
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 2.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.