Literature DB >> 1793693

EEG versus MEG localization accuracy: theory and experiment.

D Cohen1, B N Cuffin.   

Abstract

We first review the theoretical and computer modelling studies concerning localization accuracy of EEG and MEG, both separately and together; the source is here a dipole. The results show that, of the three causes of localization errors, noise and head modelling errors have about the same effect on EEG and MEG localization accuracies, while the results for measurement placement errors are inconclusive. Thus, these results to date show no significant superiority of MEG over EEG localization accuracy. Secondly, we review the experimental findings, where there are again localization accuracy studies of EEG and MEG both separately and together. The most significant EEG-only study was due to dipoles implanted in the heads of patients, and produced an average localization error of 20 mm. Various MEG-only studies gave an average error of 2-3 mm in saline spheres and 4-8 mm in saline-filled skulls. In the one study where EEG and MEG localization were directly compared in the same actual head, again using dipoles implanted in patients, the average EEG and MEG errors of localization were 10 and 8 mm respectively. The MEG error was later confirmed by a similar (but MEG-only) experiment in another study, using a more elaborate MEG system. In summary, both theory and experiment suggests that the MEG offers no significant advantage over the EEG in the task of localizing a dipole source. The main use of the MEG, therefore, should be based on the proven feature that the MEG signal from a radial source is highly suppressed, allowing it to complement the EEG in selecting between competing source configurations.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1793693     DOI: 10.1007/bf01132766

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Topogr        ISSN: 0896-0267            Impact factor:   3.020


  27 in total

Review 1.  Recording and interpretation of cerebral magnetic fields.

Authors:  R Hari; O V Lounasmaa
Journal:  Science       Date:  1989-04-28       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Localization of implanted dipoles by magnetoencephalography.

Authors:  M Balish; S Sato; P Connaughton; C Kufta
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 9.910

3.  Effects of measurement errors and noise on MEG moving dipole inverse solutions.

Authors:  B N Cuffin
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 4.538

4.  Electric dipole tracing in the brain by means of the boundary element method and its accuracy.

Authors:  B He; T Musha; Y Okamoto; S Homma; Y Nakajima; T Sato
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 4.538

5.  Electrical sources in human somatosensory cortex: identification by combined magnetic and potential recordings.

Authors:  C C Wood; D Cohen; B N Cuffin; M Yarita; T Allison
Journal:  Science       Date:  1985-03-01       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Analysis of magnetoencephalographic data using the homogeneous sphere model: empirical tests.

Authors:  B S Janday; S J Swithenby
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Feasibility of the homogeneous head model in the interpretation of neuromagnetic fields.

Authors:  M S Hämäläinen; J Sarvas
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Effects of local variations in skull and scalp thickness on EEG's and MEG's.

Authors:  B N Cuffin
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.538

9.  Accuracy of dipole localization with a spherical homogeneous model.

Authors:  R P Gaumond; J H Lin; D B Geselowitz
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 4.538

10.  Location of sources of evoked scalp potentials: corrections for skull and scalp thicknesses.

Authors:  J P Ary; S A Klein; D H Fender
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 4.538

View more
  12 in total

1.  Electroencephalographic imaging of higher brain function.

Authors:  A Gevins; M E Smith; L K McEvoy; H Leong; J Le
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  1999-07-29       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  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

3.  Localization of coherent sources by simultaneous MEG and EEG beamformer.

Authors:  Jun Hee Hong; Minkyu Ahn; Kiwoong Kim; Sung Chan Jun
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 2.602

4.  Spatial relationship of source localizations in patients with focal epilepsy: Comparison of MEG and EEG with a three spherical shells and a boundary element volume conductor model.

Authors:  Gabriela Scheler; Michael J M Fischer; Alexandra Genow; Cornelia Hummel; Stefan Rampp; Andrea Paulini; Rüdiger Hopfengärtner; Martin Kaltenhäuser; Hermann Stefan
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Head surface digitization and registration: a method for mapping positions on the head onto magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  B Wang; C Toro; T A Zeffiro; M Hallett
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.020

Review 6.  Update on epilepsy and cerebral localization.

Authors:  Adam L Hartman; Ronald P Lesser
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.081

7.  Hemicraniectomy: a new model for human electrophysiology with high spatio-temporal resolution.

Authors:  Bradley Voytek; Lavi Secundo; Aurelie Bidet-Caulet; Donatella Scabini; Shirley I Stiver; Alisa D Gean; Geoffrey T Manley; Robert T Knight
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 8.  Brain development during the preschool years.

Authors:  Timothy T Brown; Terry L Jernigan
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 7.444

9.  EEG-MEG Integration Enhances the Characterization of Functional and Effective Connectivity in the Resting State Network.

Authors:  Muthuraman Muthuraman; Vera Moliadze; Kidist Gebremariam Mideksa; Abdul Rauf Anwar; Ulrich Stephani; Günther Deuschl; Christine M Freitag; Michael Siniatchkin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The effect of ageing on fMRI: Correction for the confounding effects of vascular reactivity evaluated by joint fMRI and MEG in 335 adults.

Authors:  Kamen A Tsvetanov; Richard N A Henson; Lorraine K Tyler; Simon W Davis; Meredith A Shafto; Jason R Taylor; Nitin Williams; James B Rowe
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 5.038

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.