Mariano Fernandez-Corazza1, Rui Feng2, Chengxin Ma2, Jie Hu2, Li Pan2, Phan Luu3, Don Tucker3. 1. LEICI Instituto de Investigaciones en Electrónica, Control y Procesamiento de Señales, Universidad Nacional de La Plata - CONICET, Argentina. Electronic address: marianof.corazza@ing.unlp.edu.ar. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 3. Brain Electrophysiology Laboratory (BEL) Company, Eugene, OR, USA; NeuroInformatics Center, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate epileptic source estimation using multiple sparse priors (MSP) inverse method and high-resolution, individual electrical head models. METHODS: Accurate source localization is dependent on accurate electrical head models and appropriate inverse solvers. Using high-resolution, individual electrical head models in fifteen epilepsy patients, with surgical resection and clinical outcome as criteria for accuracy, performance of MSP method was compared against standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA) and coherent maximum entropy on the mean (cMEM) methods. RESULTS: The MSP method performed similarly to the sLORETA method and slightly better than the cMEM method in terms of success rate. The MSP and cMEM methods were more focal than sLORETA with the advantage of not requiring an arbitrary selection of a hyperparameter or thresholding of reconstructed current density values to determine focus. MSP and cMEM methods were better than sLORETA in terms of spatial dispersion. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the three methods are complementary and could be used together. In practice, the MSP method will be easier to use and interpret compared to sLORETA, and slightly more accurate and faster than the cMEM method. SIGNIFICANCE: Source localization of interictal spikes from dense-array electroencephalography data has been shown to be a reliable marker of epileptic foci and useful for pre-surgical planning. The advantages of MSP make it a useful complement to other inverse solvers in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate epileptic source estimation using multiple sparse priors (MSP) inverse method and high-resolution, individual electrical head models. METHODS: Accurate source localization is dependent on accurate electrical head models and appropriate inverse solvers. Using high-resolution, individual electrical head models in fifteen epilepsypatients, with surgical resection and clinical outcome as criteria for accuracy, performance of MSP method was compared against standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA) and coherent maximum entropy on the mean (cMEM) methods. RESULTS: The MSP method performed similarly to the sLORETA method and slightly better than the cMEM method in terms of success rate. The MSP and cMEM methods were more focal than sLORETA with the advantage of not requiring an arbitrary selection of a hyperparameter or thresholding of reconstructed current density values to determine focus. MSP and cMEM methods were better than sLORETA in terms of spatial dispersion. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the three methods are complementary and could be used together. In practice, the MSP method will be easier to use and interpret compared to sLORETA, and slightly more accurate and faster than the cMEM method. SIGNIFICANCE: Source localization of interictal spikes from dense-array electroencephalography data has been shown to be a reliable marker of epileptic foci and useful for pre-surgical planning. The advantages of MSP make it a useful complement to other inverse solvers in clinical practice.
Authors: Hans Hallez; Bart Vanrumste; Roberta Grech; Joseph Muscat; Wim De Clercq; Anneleen Vergult; Yves D'Asseler; Kenneth P Camilleri; Simon G Fabri; Sabine Van Huffel; Ignace Lemahieu Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2007-11-30 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: L D J Fiederer; J Vorwerk; F Lucka; M Dannhauer; S Yang; M Dümpelmann; A Schulze-Bonhage; A Aertsen; O Speck; C H Wolters; T Ball Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kyle K Morgan; Evan Hathaway; Megan Carson; Mariano Fernandez-Corazza; Roma Shusterman; Phan Luu; Don M Tucker Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 4.842
Authors: Steven Beumer; Paul Boon; Debby C W Klooster; Raymond van Ee; Evelien Carrette; Maarten M Paulides; Rob M C Mestrom Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2022-05-07