A general Bayesian treatment for MEG source reconstruction incorporating lead field uncertainty

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

There is uncertainty introduced when a cortical surface based model derived from an anatomical MRI is used to reconstruct neural activity with MEG data. This is a specific case of a problem with uncertainty in parameters on which M/EEG lead fields depend non-linearly. Here we present a general mathematical treatment of any such problem with a particular focus on co-registration. We use a Metropolis search followed by Bayesian Model Averaging over multiple sparse prior source inversions with different headlocation/orientation parameters. Based on MEG data alone we can locate the cortex to within 4 mm at empirically realistic signal to noise ratios. We also show that this process gives improved posterior distributions on the estimated current distributions, and can be extended to make inference on the locations of local maxima by providing confidence intervals for each source.

Highlights

► We show how to account for lead field uncertainty in the MEG inverse problem. ► Co-registration errors propagate through to the final current density estimate. ► It is possible to recover the location of the head based on MEG data alone.

Related collections

Most cited references 17

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The magnetic lead field theorem in the quasi-static approximation and its use for magnetoencephalography forward calculation in realistic volume conductors.

Guido Nolte (2003)

The equation for the magnetic lead field for a given magnetoencephalography (MEG) channel is well known for arbitrary frequencies omega but is not directly applicable to MEG in the quasi-static approximation. In this paper we derive an equation for omega = 0 starting from the very definition of the lead field instead of using Helmholtz's reciprocity theorems. The results are (a) the transpose of the conductivity times the lead field is divergence-free, and (b) the lead field differs from the one in any other volume conductor by a gradient of a scalar function. Consequently, for a piecewise homogeneous and isotropic volume conductor, the lead field is always tangential at the outermost surface. Based on this theoretical result, we formulated a simple and fast method for the MEG forward calculation for one shell of arbitrary shape: we correct the corresponding lead field for a spherical volume conductor by a superposition of basis functions, gradients of harmonic functions constructed here from spherical harmonics, with coefficients fitted to the boundary conditions. The algorithm was tested for a prolate spheroid of realistic shape for which the analytical solution is known. For high order in the expansion, we found the solutions to be essentially exact and for reasonable accuracies much fewer multiplications are needed than in typical implementations of the boundary element methods. The generalization to more shells is straightforward.

0 comments Cited 403 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Review on solving the inverse problem in EEG source analysis

Roberta Grech, Tracey Cassar, Joseph Muscat … (2008)

In this primer, we give a review of the inverse problem for EEG source localization. This is intended for the researchers new in the field to get insight in the state-of-the-art techniques used to find approximate solutions of the brain sources giving rise to a scalp potential recording. Furthermore, a review of the performance results of the different techniques is provided to compare these different inverse solutions. The authors also include the results of a Monte-Carlo analysis which they performed to compare four non parametric algorithms and hence contribute to what is presently recorded in the literature. An extensive list of references to the work of other researchers is also provided. This paper starts off with a mathematical description of the inverse problem and proceeds to discuss the two main categories of methods which were developed to solve the EEG inverse problem, mainly the non parametric and parametric methods. The main difference between the two is to whether a fixed number of dipoles is assumed a priori or not. Various techniques falling within these categories are described including minimum norm estimates and their generalizations, LORETA, sLORETA, VARETA, S-MAP, ST-MAP, Backus-Gilbert, LAURA, Shrinking LORETA FOCUSS (SLF), SSLOFO and ALF for non parametric methods and beamforming techniques, BESA, subspace techniques such as MUSIC and methods derived from it, FINES, simulated annealing and computational intelligence algorithms for parametric methods. From a review of the performance of these techniques as documented in the literature, one could conclude that in most cases the LORETA solution gives satisfactory results. In situations involving clusters of dipoles, higher resolution algorithms such as MUSIC or FINES are however preferred. Imposing reliable biophysical and psychological constraints, as done by LAURA has given superior results. The Monte-Carlo analysis performed, comparing WMN, LORETA, sLORETA and SLF, for different noise levels and different simulated source depths has shown that for single source localization, regularized sLORETA gives the best solution in terms of both localization error and ghost sources. Furthermore the computationally intensive solution given by SLF was not found to give any additional benefits under such simulated conditions.

0 comments Cited 274 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Review on solving the forward problem in EEG source analysis

Hans Hallez, Bart Vanrumste, Roberta Grech … (2007)

Background The aim of electroencephalogram (EEG) source localization is to find the brain areas responsible for EEG waves of interest. It consists of solving forward and inverse problems. The forward problem is solved by starting from a given electrical source and calculating the potentials at the electrodes. These evaluations are necessary to solve the inverse problem which is defined as finding brain sources which are responsible for the measured potentials at the EEG electrodes. Methods While other reviews give an extensive summary of the both forward and inverse problem, this review article focuses on different aspects of solving the forward problem and it is intended for newcomers in this research field. Results It starts with focusing on the generators of the EEG: the post-synaptic potentials in the apical dendrites of pyramidal neurons. These cells generate an extracellular current which can be modeled by Poisson's differential equation, and Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions. The compartments in which these currents flow can be anisotropic (e.g. skull and white matter). In a three-shell spherical head model an analytical expression exists to solve the forward problem. During the last two decades researchers have tried to solve Poisson's equation in a realistically shaped head model obtained from 3D medical images, which requires numerical methods. The following methods are compared with each other: the boundary element method (BEM), the finite element method (FEM) and the finite difference method (FDM). In the last two methods anisotropic conducting compartments can conveniently be introduced. Then the focus will be set on the use of reciprocity in EEG source localization. It is introduced to speed up the forward calculations which are here performed for each electrode position rather than for each dipole position. Solving Poisson's equation utilizing FEM and FDM corresponds to solving a large sparse linear system. Iterative methods are required to solve these sparse linear systems. The following iterative methods are discussed: successive over-relaxation, conjugate gradients method and algebraic multigrid method. Conclusion Solving the forward problem has been well documented in the past decades. In the past simplified spherical head models are used, whereas nowadays a combination of imaging modalities are used to accurately describe the geometry of the head model. Efforts have been done on realistically describing the shape of the head model, as well as the heterogenity of the tissue types and realistically determining the conductivity. However, the determination and validation of the in vivo conductivity values is still an important topic in this field. In addition, more studies have to be done on the influence of all the parameters of the head model and of the numerical techniques on the solution of the forward problem.

0 comments Cited 116 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Neuroimage

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Neuroimage

Title: Neuroimage

Publisher: Academic Press

ISSN (Print): 1053-8119

ISSN (Electronic): 1095-9572

Publication date PMC-release: 02 April 2012

Publication date (Print): 02 April 2012

Volume: 60

Issue: 2-4

Pages: 1194-1204

Affiliations

[a ]Mechatronics School, Bl. M8-108 Facultad de Minas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín, Colombia

[b ]Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College, London WC1N 3BG, UK

Author notes

[* ]Corresponding author. jodlopezhi@ 123456unal.edu.co

Article

Publisher ID: YNIMG9142

DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.077

PMC ID: 3334829

PubMed ID: 22289800

SO-VID: 176a5f61-377c-48d2-a13e-360a31896f89

License:

This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions.

History

Date received : 15 September 2011

Date revision received : 6 December 2011

Date accepted : 8 January 2012

Comments

Comment on this article

Cited by 13

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 156

See all reference authors

- Version 1