Literature DB >> 95707

Comparison of the magnetoencephalogram and electroencephalogram.

B N Cuffin1, D Cohen.   

Abstract

The spatial response of the magnetoencephalogram (MEG) to sources in the brain's cortex is compared with that of the electroencephalogram (EEG). This is done using computer modeling of the head which is approximated by 4 concentric spherical regions that represent the brain and surrounding bone and tissue. Lead fields are calculated at points on the cortex for unipolar, bipolar and quadrupolar MEG and EEG measurements. Since lead fields are patterns of the sensitivity of these measurements to a source at various locations and orientations, they provide a convenient means for comparison. It is found that a unipolar MEG has a very different lead field than a unipolar EEG. Hence, this type of MEG detects sources at different locations and orientations than this EEG. Although bipolar MEG and EEG lead fields are found to have similar patterns, the MEG lead field is narrower than that of the EEG and hence 'sees' a smaller area on the cortex than the EEG. This is because the potentials measured by the EEG are 'smeared' by the low-conductivity skull; the magnetic fields measured by the MEG are not smeared. Quadrupolar MEG and EEG lead fields are found to be about the same. The responses of bipolar MEGs and EEGs to distributed sources, which are composed of aligned and randomly oriented dipoles, are compared. It is found that for both types of sources, the MEG 'sees' an area on the cortex which is approximately 0.3 times that for the EEG. Hence, the MEG appears to be useful for detecting a more restricted group of sources than the EEG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1979        PMID: 95707     DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(79)90215-3

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


  49 in total

1.  Modeling extended sources of event-related potentials using anatomical and physiological constraints.

Authors:  W E Kincses; C Braun; S Kaiser; T Elbert
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  Brain evoked potential topographic mapping based on the diffuse approximation.

Authors:  D Bouattoura; P Gaillard; P Villon; F Langevin
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Applicability of the single equivalent point dipole model to represent a spatially distributed bio-electrical source.

Authors:  A A Armoundas; A B Feldman; D A Sherman; R J Cohen
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.602

4.  A cortical potential imaging study from simultaneous extra- and intracranial electrical recordings by means of the finite element method.

Authors:  Yingchun Zhang; Lei Ding; Wim van Drongelen; Kurt Hecox; David M Frim; Bin He
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2006-05-02       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Realistic spatial sampling for MEG beamformer images.

Authors:  Gareth R Barnes; Arjan Hillebrand; Ian P Fawcett; Krish D Singh
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Effects of regional anesthesia on phantom limb pain are mirrored in changes in cortical reorganization.

Authors:  N Birbaumer; W Lutzenberger; P Montoya; W Larbig; K Unertl; S Töpfner; W Grodd; E Taub; H Flor
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1997-07-15       Impact factor: 6.167

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

Review 9.  EEG versus MEG localization accuracy: theory and experiment.

Authors:  D Cohen; B N Cuffin
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.020

Review 10.  A visual study of surface potentials and Laplacians due to distributed neocortical sources: computer simulations and evoked potentials.

Authors:  P L Nunez; K L Pilgreen; A F Westdorp; S K Law; A V Nelson
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.020

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.