首页> 外文OA文献 >Source localization of EEG versus MEG: Empirical comparison using visually evoked responses and theoretical considerations
【2h】

Source localization of EEG versus MEG: Empirical comparison using visually evoked responses and theoretical considerations

机译:EEG与mEG的源定位:使用视觉诱发反应和理论考虑的经验比较

摘要

Theoretically, the information we can obtain about the functional localization of a source of brain activity from the scalp, for instance evoked by a sensory stimulus, is the same whether one uses EEG or MEG recordings. However, the nature of the sources and, especially of the volume conductor, poses constraints such that appreciable differences between both types of data may exist. We present here empirical and theoretical data that illustrate which are the main constraints and to what extent they may affect electric potential and magnetic field maps. The empirical data consists of visual evoked potential and magnetic fields to the appearance of a checkerboard pattern (half-visual field stimulation). The concept of equivalent dipole is presented and its limitations are discussed. It is considered that the concept of equivalent dipole (ED) yields only an approximate description of the activity of a patch of cortex. A main difference between EEG and MEG recordings is the fact that radially oriented dipoles can hardly be seen in the MEG in contrast with the EEG. Accordingly, a weak tangential dipole component is difficult to distinguish in the EEG if a strong radial component is also present. However, a combination of both methods can give useful complementary information in such cases. A factor that influences largely such differences is the model of volume conductor used. A four concentric spheres model, as commonly used for solving the inverse problem of source localization, causes appreciable errors when EEG data are used but much less in case of the MEG. The use of a model consisting of eccentric spheres fitting the four compartments, brain, CSF, skull and scalp, provides a better approximation of the real geometry of the head and allows to obtain comparable results for visual evoked potentials and magnetic fields. It is emphasized that for precise localization of EDs, especially based on EEG recordings, a realistic model of the different compartments of the head is necessary. The latter must be tailor made to a given subject using MRI-scans, in view of the large variability in head geometry between subjects.
机译:从理论上讲,无论是使用EEG记录还是MEG记录,我们可以从头皮获得的有关脑活动源功能定位的信息都是相同的,例如,由感觉刺激引起的信息。然而,源的性质,尤其是体导体的性质,构成了限制,使得两种类型的数据之间可能存在明显的差异。我们在这里提供经验和理论数据,这些数据说明了哪些是主要限制因素以及它们在多大程度上可能影响电势和磁场图。经验数据包括视觉诱发电位和磁场到棋盘图案的出现(半视场刺激)。介绍了等效偶极子的概念,并讨论了其局限性。认为等效偶极子(ED)的概念仅产生对皮质片活性的近似描述。 EEG和MEG记录之间的主要区别在于,与EEG相比,在MEG中几乎看不到径向偶极子。因此,如果还存在强的径向分量,则难以在EEG中区分弱的切向偶极子分量。但是,在这种情况下,两种方法的组合可以提供有用的补充信息。影响这种差异的一个因素是所使用的体积导体的模型。通常用于解决源定位反问题的四个同心球模型在使用EEG数据时会引起可观的误差,而在使用MEG的情况下会引起明显的误差。使用由偏心球体组成的模型,该偏心球体适合大脑,脑脊液,颅骨和头皮这四个部分,可以更好地逼近头部的真实几何形状,并且可以获得视觉诱发电位和磁场的可比结果。要强调的是,为了精确定位ED,尤其是基于EEG记录,必须对头部的不同部位进行逼真的建模。考虑到受试者之间头部几何形状的巨大差异,后者必须使用MRI扫描针对给定的受试者量身定制。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号