Literature DB >> 16364662

Influence of tissue conductivity anisotropy on EEG/MEG field and return current computation in a realistic head model: a simulation and visualization study using high-resolution finite element modeling.

C H Wolters1, A Anwander, X Tricoche, D Weinstein, M A Koch, R S MacLeod.   

Abstract

To achieve a deeper understanding of the brain, scientists, and clinicians use electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) inverse methods to reconstruct sources in the cortical sheet of the human brain. The influence of structural and electrical anisotropy in both the skull and the white matter on the EEG and MEG source reconstruction is not well understood. In this paper, we report on a study of the sensitivity to tissue anisotropy of the EEG/MEG forward problem for deep and superficial neocortical sources with differing orientation components in an anatomically accurate model of the human head. The goal of the study was to gain insight into the effect of anisotropy of skull and white matter conductivity through the visualization of field distributions, isopotential surfaces, and return current flow and through statistical error measures. One implicit premise of the study is that factors that affect the accuracy of the forward solution will have at least as strong an influence over solutions to the associated inverse problem. Major findings of the study include (1) anisotropic white matter conductivity causes return currents to flow in directions parallel to the white matter fiber tracts; (2) skull anisotropy has a smearing effect on the forward potential computation; and (3) the deeper a source lies and the more it is surrounded by anisotropic tissue, the larger the influence of this anisotropy on the resulting electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, for the EEG, the presence of tissue anisotropy both for the skull and white matter compartment substantially compromises the forward potential computation and as a consequence, the inverse source reconstruction. In contrast, for the MEG, only the anisotropy of the white matter compartment has a significant effect. Finally, return currents with high amplitudes were found in the highly conducting cerebrospinal fluid compartment, underscoring the need for accurate modeling of this space.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16364662     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.10.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  96 in total

1.  Neuroelectromagnetic forward head modeling toolbox.

Authors:  Zeynep Akalin Acar; Scott Makeig
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2010-05-08       Impact factor: 2.390

2.  Simultaneous EEG and MEG source reconstruction in sparse electromagnetic source imaging.

Authors:  Lei Ding; Han Yuan
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Modeling of the human skull in EEG source analysis.

Authors:  Moritz Dannhauer; Benjamin Lanfer; Carsten H Wolters; Thomas R Knösche
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Sensitivity of beamformer source analysis to deficiencies in forward modeling.

Authors:  Olaf Steinsträter; Stephanie Sillekens; Markus Junghoefer; Martin Burger; Carsten H Wolters
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2010-05-24       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Sensitivity of MEG and EEG to source orientation.

Authors:  Seppo P Ahlfors; Jooman Han; John W Belliveau; Matti S Hämäläinen
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2010-07-18       Impact factor: 3.020

6.  From evoked potentials to cortical currents: Resolving V1 and V2 components using retinotopy constrained source estimation without fMRI.

Authors:  Samuel A Inverso; Xin-Lin Goh; Linda Henriksson; Simo Vanni; Andrew C James
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  Spatial resolution of EEG cortical source imaging revealed by localization of retinotopic organization in human primary visual cortex.

Authors:  Chang-Hwan Im; Arvind Gururajan; Nanyin Zhang; Wei Chen; Bin He
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2006-11-13       Impact factor: 2.390

8.  Benchmarking transcranial electrical stimulation finite element models: a comparison study.

Authors:  Aprinda Indahlastari; Munish Chauhan; Rosalind J Sadleir
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 5.379

9.  Electric Field Model of Transcranial Electric Stimulation in Nonhuman Primates: Correspondence to Individual Motor Threshold.

Authors:  Won Hee Lee; Sarah H Lisanby; Andrew F Laine; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 4.538

10.  Effects of sutures and fontanels on MEG and EEG source analysis in a realistic infant head model.

Authors:  Seok Lew; Danielle D Sliva; Myong-sun Choe; P Ellen Grant; Yoshio Okada; Carsten H Wolters; Matti S Hämäläinen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-03-24       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.