Evaluation of multiple-sphere head models for MEG source localization
- PMID: 21828900
- DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/17/010
Evaluation of multiple-sphere head models for MEG source localization
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) source analysis has largely relied on spherical conductor models of the head to simplify forward calculations of the brain's magnetic field. Multiple- (or overlapping, local) sphere models, where an optimal sphere is selected for each sensor, are considered an improvement over single-sphere models and are computationally simpler than realistic models. However, there is limited information available regarding the different methods used to generate these models and their relative accuracy. We describe a variety of single- and multiple-sphere fitting approaches, including a novel method that attempts to minimize the field error. An accurate boundary element method simulation was used to evaluate the relative field measurement error (12% on average) and dipole fit localization bias (3.5 mm) of each model over the entire brain. All spherical models can contribute in the order of 1 cm to the localization bias in regions of the head that depart significantly from a sphere (inferior frontal and temporal). These spherical approximation errors can give rise to larger localization differences when all modeling effects are taken into account and with more complex source configurations or other inverse techniques, as shown with a beamformer example. Results differed noticeably depending on the source location, making it difficult to recommend a fitting method that performs best in general. Given these limitations, it may be advisable to expand the use of realistic head models.
Similar articles
-
The 3D topography of MEG source localization accuracy: effects of conductor model and noise.Clin Neurophysiol. 2003 Oct;114(10):1977-92. doi: 10.1016/s1388-2457(03)00195-0. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003. PMID: 14499760
-
Comparison of three-shell and simplified volume conductor models in magnetoencephalography.Neuroimage. 2014 Jul 1;94:337-348. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.006. Epub 2014 Jan 14. Neuroimage. 2014. PMID: 24434678
-
Monte Carlo simulation studies of EEG and MEG localization accuracy.Hum Brain Mapp. 2002 May;16(1):47-62. doi: 10.1002/hbm.10024. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002. PMID: 11870926 Free PMC article.
-
Mapping human brain function with MEG and EEG: methods and validation.Neuroimage. 2004;23 Suppl 1:S289-99. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.014. Neuroimage. 2004. PMID: 15501098 Review.
-
Models of the human brain and the surrounding media: their influence on the reliability of source localization.J Clin Neurophysiol. 1991 Oct;8(4):381-90. doi: 10.1097/00004691-199110000-00003. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1991. PMID: 1761704 Review.
Cited by
-
Artificial embodiment displaces cortical neuromagnetic somatosensory responses.Sci Rep. 2024 Sep 27;14(1):22279. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-72460-6. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 39333283 Free PMC article.
-
Converging function, structure, and behavioural features of emotion regulation in very preterm children.Hum Brain Mapp. 2019 Aug 1;40(11):3385-3397. doi: 10.1002/hbm.24604. Epub 2019 May 6. Hum Brain Mapp. 2019. PMID: 31056820 Free PMC article.
-
Network Perspectives on Epilepsy Using EEG/MEG Source Connectivity.Front Neurol. 2019 Jul 17;10:721. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00721. eCollection 2019. Front Neurol. 2019. PMID: 31379703 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Reduced beta band connectivity during number estimation in autism.Neuroimage Clin. 2014 Aug 27;6:202-13. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2014.08.020. eCollection 2014. Neuroimage Clin. 2014. PMID: 25379432 Free PMC article.
-
Similarities and differences between on-scalp and conventional in-helmet magnetoencephalography recordings.PLoS One. 2017 Jul 24;12(7):e0178602. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178602. eCollection 2017. PLoS One. 2017. PMID: 28742118 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources