Literature DB >> 6190632

Demonstration of useful differences between magnetoencephalogram and electroencephalogram.

D Cohen, B N Cuffin.   

Abstract

For a dipole source, theory predicts 3 useful differences between the MEG and EEG spatial patterns over the head. These are seen when a comparison is made between theoretical MEG and EEG maps, due to the dipole in a spherical model of the head. If true, these differences would allow the MEG to better localize or differentiate neural sources in some ways than does the EEG. A first experimental test of the differences is made here. A comparison is made between MEG and EEG maps due to a neural source which appears to behave as a dipole (N20 of the somatic evoked response). The same 3 differences are seen, therefore the predicted differences are confirmed experimentally. The first 2 differences, due only to the tangential component of the dipole, are that the MEG pattern is rotated by 90 degrees from the EEG pattern and is one-third tighter. The first allows the MEG to localize a tangential dipole better in a preferred direction, across the dipole (while the EEG does so along the dipole); the second allows the MEG to localize somewhat better in its preferred direction than the EEG does in its preferred direction. The third difference is due only to the radial component of the dipole; while the MEG receives no contribution from this component, the EEG pattern is asymmetrical and is heavily weighted by it. This allows the MEG to reveal tangential sources which are obscured by the radial sources in the EEG. For sources which cannot be approximated by a dipole, the MEG-EEG differences will depend on the particular case; however, the spherical model can now be used with more confidence to predict differences in these cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6190632     DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(83)90005-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0013-4694


  69 in total

1.  Evidence for a hierarchy of predictions and prediction errors in human cortex.

Authors:  Catherine Wacongne; Etienne Labyt; Virginie van Wassenhove; Tristan Bekinschtein; Lionel Naccache; Stanislas Dehaene
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The topographic distribution of the magnetic P100M to full- and half-field stimulation.

Authors:  G Harding; B Janday; R Armstrong
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Short-term habituation of auditory evoked potential and neuromagnetic field components in dependence of the interstimulus interval.

Authors:  Timm Rosburg; Karen Zimmerer; Ralph Huonker
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-08-14       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  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

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.  Determining the Optimal Number of MEG Trials: A Machine Learning and Speech Decoding Perspective.

Authors:  Debadatta Dash; Paul Ferrari; Saleem Malik; Albert Montillo; Joseph A Maldjian; Jun Wang
Journal:  Brain Inform (2018)       Date:  2018-12-07

7.  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

8.  Sensitivity of EEG and MEG to the N1 and P2 auditory evoked responses modulated by spectral complexity of sounds.

Authors:  Antoine J Shahin; Larry E Roberts; Lee M Miller; Kelly L McDonald; Claude Alain
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2007-09-25       Impact factor: 3.020

9.  Modeling skull electrical properties.

Authors:  R J Sadleir; A Argibay
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2007-07-14       Impact factor: 3.934

10.  A novel integrated MEG and EEG analysis method for dipolar sources.

Authors:  Ming-Xiong Huang; Tao Song; Donald J Hagler; Igor Podgorny; Veikko Jousmaki; Li Cui; Kathleen Gaa; Deborah L Harrington; Anders M Dale; Roland R Lee; Jeff Elman; Eric Halgren
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2007-06-14       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.