Literature DB >> 36148152

Source localization using virtual magnetoencephalography helmets: A simulation study toward a prior-based tailored scheme.

Oshrit Arviv1,2, Yuval Harpaz3, Evgeny Tsizin1,4, Tal Benoliel1,2, Dana Ekstein1,2, Mordekhay Medvedovsky1.   

Abstract

Magnetoencephalography (MEG) source estimation of brain electromagnetic fields is an ill-posed problem. A virtual MEG helmet (VMH), can be constructed by recording in different head positions and then transforming the multiple head-MEG coordinates into one head frame (i.e., as though the MEG helmet was moving while the head remained static). The constructed VMH has sensors placed in various distances and angles, thus improving the spatial sampling of neuromagnetic fields. VMH has been previously shown to increase total information in comparison to a standard MEG helmet. The aim of this study was to examine whether VMH can improve source estimation accuracy. To this end, controlled simulations were carried out, in which the source characteristics are predefined. A series of VMHs were constructed by applying two or three translations and rotations to a standard 248 channel MEG array. In each simulation, the magnetic field generated by 1 to 5 dipoles was forward projected, alongside noise components. The results of this study showed that at low noise levels (e.g., averaged data of similar signals), VMHs can significantly improve the accuracy of source estimations, compared to the standard MEG array. Moreover, when utilizing a priori information, tailoring the constructed VMHs to specific sets of postulated neuronal sources can further improve the accuracy. This is shown to be a robust and stable method, even for proximate locations. Overall, VMH may add significant precision to MEG source estimation, for research and clinical benefits, such as in challenging epilepsy cases, aiding in surgical design.
Copyright © 2022 Arviv, Harpaz, Tsizin, Benoliel, Ekstein and Medvedovsky.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dipole fit; epilepsy surgery; equivalent current dipole; gain matrix; inverse problem; source estimation; source localization

Year:  2022        PMID: 36148152      PMCID: PMC9485615          DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.947228

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Neurosci        ISSN: 1662-453X            Impact factor:   5.152


  18 in total

1.  How many channels are needed for MEG?

Authors:  J Vrba; S E Robinson; J McCubbin
Journal:  Neurol Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-11-30

2.  Source localization of the seizure onset zone from ictal EEG/MEG data.

Authors:  Giovanni Pellegrino; Tanguy Hedrich; Rasheda Chowdhury; Jeffery A Hall; Jean-Marc Lina; Francois Dubeau; Eliane Kobayashi; Christophe Grova
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Virtual MEG Helmet: Computer Simulation of an Approach to Neuromagnetic Field Sampling.

Authors:  Mordekhay Medvedovsky; Jukka Nenonen; Alexandra Koptelova; Anna Butorina; Ritva Paetau; Jyrki P Mäkelä; Antti Ahonen; Juha Simola; Tomer Gazit; Samu Taulu
Journal:  IEEE J Biomed Health Inform       Date:  2015-01-19       Impact factor: 5.772

4.  Improving MEG performance with additional tangential sensors.

Authors:  Jussi Nurminen; Samu Taulu; Jukka Nenonen; Liisa Helle; Juha Simola; Antti Ahonen
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 4.538

5.  Magnetoencephalography: evidence of magnetic fields produced by alpha-rhythm currents.

Authors:  D Cohen
Journal:  Science       Date:  1968-08-23       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Basic mathematical and electromagnetic concepts of the biomagnetic inverse problem.

Authors:  J Sarvas
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 7.  Controversies in neurophysiology. MEG is superior to EEG in localization of interictal epileptiform activity: Pro.

Authors:  Gregory L Barkley
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.708

8.  FieldTrip: Open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data.

Authors:  Robert Oostenveld; Pascal Fries; Eric Maris; Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen
Journal:  Comput Intell Neurosci       Date:  2010-12-23

9.  Spatial sampling of MEG and EEG based on generalized spatial-frequency analysis and optimal design.

Authors:  Joonas Iivanainen; Antti J Mäkinen; Rasmus Zetter; Matti Stenroos; Risto J Ilmoniemi; Lauri Parkkonen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2021-11-28       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Good practice for conducting and reporting MEG research.

Authors:  Joachim Gross; Sylvain Baillet; Gareth R Barnes; Richard N Henson; Arjan Hillebrand; Ole Jensen; Karim Jerbi; Vladimir Litvak; Burkhard Maess; Robert Oostenveld; Lauri Parkkonen; Jason R Taylor; Virginie van Wassenhove; Michael Wibral; Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.