Variability of EEG electrode positions and their underlying brain regions: visualizing gel artifacts from a simultaneous EEG‐fMRI dataset

Abstract

Introduction:We investigated the between-subject variability of EEG (electroencephalography) electrode placement from a simultaneously recorded EEG-fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) dataset.Methods: Neuro-navigation software was used to localize electrode positions, made possible by the gel artifacts present in the structural magnetic resonance images. To assess variation in the brain regions directly underneath electrodes we used MNI coordinates, their associated Brodmann areas, and labels from the Harvard-Oxford Cortical Atlas. We outline this relatively simple pipeline with accompanying analysis code. Results:In a sample of 20 participants, the mean standard deviation of electrode placement was 3.94 mm in x, 5.55 mm in y, and 7.17 mm in z, with the largest variation in parietal and occipital electrodes. In addition, the brain regions covered by electrode pairs were not always consistent; for example, the mean location of electrode PO7 was mapped to BA18 (secondary visual cortex), whereas PO8 was closer to BA19 (visual association cortex). Further, electrode C1 was mapped to BA4 (primary motor cortex), whereas C2 was closer to BA6 (premotor cortex).Conclusions: Overall, the results emphasize the variation in electrode positioning that can be found even in a fixed cap. This may be particularly important to consider when using EEG positioning systems to inform non-invasive neurostimulation.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Targeting the Entire Motor Network Does Not Increase Corticospinal Excitability

“…Smaller electrodes lead to more focal electric fields in the brain ( Mikkonen et al, 2020 ). Together with the standardized electrode locations we used, it could thus be that the peak electric fields were not located at the intended M1 target due to interindividual differences in brain anatomy relative to standardized EEG locations ( Scrivener and Reader, 2022 ). Nonetheless, modeling studies indicate that the small stimulation electrodes generate electric fields in M1 that exceed those of large electrodes (up to 35 cm 2 ) in a broad cortical area ( Mikkonen et al, 2020 ), supporting the use of small electrodes in standardized EEG locations.…”

Objective speech intelligibility prediction using a deep learning model with continuous speech-evoked cortical auditory responses

“…Here, occlusion sensitivity explained that neural activity from the central and left frontal region made the most important contribution to speech understanding. The topographic map of occlusion sensitivity in PH and PHENV cases showed that the language dominant region (typically F3 within the middle frontal gyrus and TP7 within the middle temporal gyrus) was highly involved in speech intelligibility processes ( Scrivener and Reader, 2022 ). The results are comparable with the findings of neuroimaging studies, specifically that of the sentence-processing network, including the middle frontal and middle temporal gyri ( Peelle et al, 2004 , 2010 ; Fiebach et al, 2005 ; Smirnov et al, 2014 ).…”

Simultaneous electroencephalography-functional magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of human brain function

“…Artifacts greatly influence the data obtained from simultaneous EEG-fMRI ( Scrivener and Reader, 2022 ). On one hand, wearing the helmet causes a variation in the magnetic field’s homogeneity, resulting in a variation in image quality; on the other hand, the magnetic field itself causes broad-band artifacts that almost entirely cover the electroencephalographic signal ( Steyrl and Müller-Putz, 2019 ).…”