Literature DB >> 23128363

Mapping cortical dynamics using simultaneous MEG/EEG and anatomically-constrained minimum-norm estimates: an auditory attention example.

Adrian K C Lee1, Eric Larson, Ross K Maddox.   

Abstract

Magneto- and electroencephalography (MEG/EEG) are neuroimaging techniques that provide a high temporal resolution particularly suitable to investigate the cortical networks involved in dynamical perceptual and cognitive tasks, such as attending to different sounds in a cocktail party. Many past studies have employed data recorded at the sensor level only, i.e., the magnetic fields or the electric potentials recorded outside and on the scalp, and have usually focused on activity that is time-locked to the stimulus presentation. This type of event-related field / potential analysis is particularly useful when there are only a small number of distinct dipolar patterns that can be isolated and identified in space and time. Alternatively, by utilizing anatomical information, these distinct field patterns can be localized as current sources on the cortex. However, for a more sustained response that may not be time-locked to a specific stimulus (e.g., in preparation for listening to one of the two simultaneously presented spoken digits based on the cued auditory feature) or may be distributed across multiple spatial locations unknown a priori, the recruitment of a distributed cortical network may not be adequately captured by using a limited number of focal sources. Here, we describe a procedure that employs individual anatomical MRI data to establish a relationship between the sensor information and the dipole activation on the cortex through the use of minimum-norm estimates (MNE). This inverse imaging approach provides us a tool for distributed source analysis. For illustrative purposes, we will describe all procedures using FreeSurfer and MNE software, both freely available. We will summarize the MRI sequences and analysis steps required to produce a forward model that enables us to relate the expected field pattern caused by the dipoles distributed on the cortex onto the M/EEG sensors. Next, we will step through the necessary processes that facilitate us in denoising the sensor data from environmental and physiological contaminants. We will then outline the procedure for combining and mapping MEG/EEG sensor data onto the cortical space, thereby producing a family of time-series of cortical dipole activation on the brain surface (or "brain movies") related to each experimental condition. Finally, we will highlight a few statistical techniques that enable us to make scientific inference across a subject population (i.e., perform group-level analysis) based on a common cortical coordinate space.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23128363      PMCID: PMC3490313          DOI: 10.3791/4262

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis Exp        ISSN: 1940-087X            Impact factor:   1.355


  15 in total

1.  Dynamic statistical parametric mapping: combining fMRI and MEG for high-resolution imaging of cortical activity.

Authors:  A M Dale; A K Liu; B R Fischl; R L Buckner; J W Belliveau; J D Lewine; E Halgren
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 2.  Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review.

Authors:  Thomas Nichols; Satoru Hayasaka
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  Functional Mapping with Simultaneous MEG and EEG.

Authors:  Hesheng Liu; Naoaki Tanaka; Steven Stufflebeam; Seppo Ahlfors; Matti Hämäläinen
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2010-06-14       Impact factor: 1.355

4.  Distributed current estimates using cortical orientation constraints.

Authors:  Fa-Hsuan Lin; John W Belliveau; Anders M Dale; Matti S Hämäläinen
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  The advantage of combining MEG and EEG: comparison to fMRI in focally stimulated visual cortex.

Authors:  Dahlia Sharon; Matti S Hämäläinen; Roger B H Tootell; Eric Halgren; John W Belliveau
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2007-04-19       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Cortical surface-based analysis. II: Inflation, flattening, and a surface-based coordinate system.

Authors:  B Fischl; M I Sereno; A M Dale
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Attention-driven auditory cortex short-term plasticity helps segregate relevant sounds from noise.

Authors:  Jyrki Ahveninen; Matti Hämäläinen; Iiro P Jääskeläinen; Seppo P Ahlfors; Samantha Huang; Fa-Hsuan Lin; Tommi Raij; Mikko Sams; Christos E Vasios; John W Belliveau
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

9.  Interpreting event-related brain potential (ERP) distributions: implications of baseline potentials and variability with application to amplitude normalization by vector scaling.

Authors:  Thomas P Urbach; Marta Kutas
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2006-01-30       Impact factor: 3.251

10.  Neural correlates of auditory perceptual awareness under informational masking.

Authors:  Alexander Gutschalk; Christophe Micheyl; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2008-06-10       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  10 in total

1.  Neural Switch Asymmetry in Feature-Based Auditory Attention Tasks.

Authors:  Susan A McLaughlin; Eric Larson; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-23

2.  The cortical dynamics underlying effective switching of auditory spatial attention.

Authors:  Eric Larson; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 3.  Using neuroimaging to understand the cortical mechanisms of auditory selective attention.

Authors:  Adrian K C Lee; Eric Larson; Ross K Maddox; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Disruption of Frontal Lobe Neural Synchrony During Cognitive Control by Alcohol Intoxication.

Authors:  Ksenija Marinkovic; Lauren E Beaton; Burke Q Rosen; Joseph P Happer; Laura C Wagner
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 1.355

5.  Switching auditory attention using spatial and non-spatial features recruits different cortical networks.

Authors:  Eric Larson; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Short-Term Audiovisual Spatial Training Enhances Electrophysiological Correlates of Auditory Selective Spatial Attention.

Authors:  Christina Hanenberg; Michael-Christian Schlüter; Stephan Getzmann; Jörg Lewald
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 4.677

Review 7.  What's New in Traumatic Brain Injury: Update on Tracking, Monitoring and Treatment.

Authors:  Cesar Reis; Yuechun Wang; Onat Akyol; Wing Mann Ho; Richard Applegate Ii; Gary Stier; Robert Martin; John H Zhang
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 5.923

8.  Auditory selective attention reveals preparatory activity in different cortical regions for selection based on source location and source pitch.

Authors:  Adrian K C Lee; Siddharth Rajaram; Jing Xia; Hari Bharadwaj; Eric Larson; Matti S Hämäläinen; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Measuring auditory selective attention using frequency tagging.

Authors:  Hari M Bharadwaj; Adrian K C Lee; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-05

Review 10.  Potential Use of MEG to Understand Abnormalities in Auditory Function in Clinical Populations.

Authors:  Eric Larson; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 3.169

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.