Linear Inverse Solutions: Simulations from a Realistic Head Model in MEG

Abstract

Distributed linear solutions are widely used in source localization to solve the ill-posed EEG/MEG inverse problem. In the classical approach based on dipole sources, these methods estimate the current densities at a great number of brain sites, typically at the nodes of a 3-D grid which discretizes the chosen solution space. The estimated current density distributions are displayed as brain electromagnetic tomography (BET) images. We have tested well known minimum norm solutions (MN, WMN, LORETA) and other linear inverse solutions [WROP, sLORETA, interference uniform, gain uniform, weight vector normalized (WVN), and a new solution named SLF (Standardized Lead Field)], using a MEG configuration (BTi Magnes 2500 WH with 148 axial magnetometers) and a realistic head model using BEM (Boundary Element Method). The solutions were compared in a noise-free condition and in the presence of noise using the classical dipole localization errors (DLE) together with a new figure of merit that we called max gain uniformity, which measures the capability of an inverse linear solution to show spots of activity with similar amplitudes on the brain electromagnetic tomographies when multiple dipole sources with similar moments are simultaneously active. Whereas some solutions (sLORETA, interference uniform and SLF) were capable of zero dipole localization errors in the noise-free case, none of them reached 100% of correct dipole localizations in the presence of a high level of Gaussian noise. The SLF solution, which has the advantage to be independent from any regularization parameter, presented the best results with the lowest max gain uniformities, with almost 100% of correct dipole localizations with 10% of noise and more than 90% of correct localizations with 30% of noise added to the data. Nevertheless, no solution was able to combine at the same time a correct localization of single sources and the capability to visualize multiple sources with comparable amplitudes on the brain electromagnetic tomographies.

Normal Electrocortical Facilitation But Abnormal Target Identification during Visual Sustained Attention in Schizophrenia

“…sLORETA is a modification of minimum norm least squares (Hämäläinen and Ilmoniemi, 1994) that uses the standardization of the minimum norm inverse solution to infer high probability regions of brain activation given the measured EEG data. sLORETA solutions yield pseudostatistics that are not appropriate for determining strength of activity, but they provide accurate information about the regions of activity that can account for the voltage pattern recorded at the sensors (e.g., Soufflet and Boeijinga, 2005).…”

Incidental encoding of emotional pictures: Affective bias studied through event related brain potentials

“…sLORETA is a 3D, discrete linear solution for the EEG inverse problem (Pascual-Marqui, 2002). Although, in general, solutions provided by EEG-based source-location algorithms should be interpreted with caution due to their potential error margins, sLORETA solutions have no location error in ideal conditions (Greenblatt et al, 2005;Sekihara et al, 2005;Soufflet and Boeijinga, 2005). Furthermore, the large sample size employed in the present study (n = 28), the use of tPCA-derived factor scores instead of direct voltages (which leads to more accurate source- Fig.…”

Clinical value of magnetoencephalographic spike propagation represented by spatiotemporal source analysis: Correlation with surgical outcome

“…Theoretically, MNE represents all magnetic fields by assuming that the sources are distributed on the cortical surface, and previous studies demonstrated an excellent concordance between the simulated and calculated sources with this model (Hämäläinen and Ilmoniemi, 1994, Silva et al 2004). A realistic head model, such as the boundary elemental method, is frequently used for obtaining precise cortical surface to constrain the activation, providing accurate source localization in simulation studies (Silva et al, 2004, Soufflet and Boeijinga, 2005) and in patients with epileptic spikes (Shiraishi et al, 2005, Tanaka et al, 2009, 2010). …”