Comparing EEG/MEG neuroimaging methods based on localization error, false positive activity, and false positive connectivity

EEG/MEG neuroimaging consists of estimating the cortical distribution of time varying signals of electric neuronal activity, for the study of functional localization and connectivity. Currently, many different imaging methods are being used, with very different capabilities of correct localization of activity and of correct localization of connectivity. The aim here is to provide a guideline for choosing the best (i.e. least bad) imaging method. This first study is limited to the comparison of the following methods for EEG signals: sLORETA and eLORETA (standardized and exact low resolution electromagnetic tomography), MNE (minimum norm estimate), dSPM (dynamic statistical parametric mapping), and LCMVBs (linearly constrained minimum variance beamformers). These methods are linear, except for the LCMVBs that make use of the quadratic EEG covariances. To achieve a fair comparison, it is assumed here that the generators are independent and widely distributed (i.e. not few in number), giving a well-defined theoretical population EEG covariance matrix for use with the LCMVBs. Measures of localization error, false positive activity, and false positive connectivity are defined and computed under ideal no-noise conditions. It is empirically shown with extensive simulations that: (1) MNE, dSPM, and all LCMVBs are in general incapable of correct localization, while sLORETA and eLORETA have exact (zero-error) localization; (2) the brain volume with false positive activity is significantly larger for MN, dSPM, and all LCMVBs, as compared to sLORETA and eLORETA; and (3) the number of false positive connections is significantly larger for MN, dSPM, all LCMVBs, and sLORETA, as compared to eLORETA. Non-vague and fully detailed equations are given. PASCAL program codes and data files are available. It is noted that the results reported here do not apply to the LCMVBs based on EEG covariance matrices generated from extremely few generators, such as only one or two independent point sources.

[1]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  Comparing functional connectivity via thresholding correlations and singular value decomposition , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  A symmetric multivariate leakage correction for MEG connectomes , 2015, NeuroImage.

[3]  Christoph M. Michel,et al.  Electrical Neuroimaging: Imaging the electric neuronal generators of EEG/MEG , 2009 .

[4]  Tae-Hoon Eom,et al.  Source localization of intermittent rhythmic delta activity in a patient with acute confusional migraine: cross-spectral analysis using standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA) , 2015, Neurological Sciences.

[5]  J. P. Ary,et al.  Location of Sources of Evoked Scalp Potentials: Corrections for Skull and Scalp Thicknesses , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[6]  Gareth R. Barnes,et al.  Non-invasive laminar inference with MEG: Comparison of methods and source inversion algorithms , 2017, NeuroImage.

[7]  D. Lehmann,et al.  Low resolution electromagnetic tomography: a new method for localizing electrical activity in the brain. , 1994, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[8]  N. Thakor,et al.  Quantitative EEG analysis methods and clinical applications , 2009 .

[9]  J. Sarvas Basic mathematical and electromagnetic concepts of the biomagnetic inverse problem. , 1987, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  関原 謙介,et al.  Adaptive Spatial Filters for Electromagnetic Brain Imaging , 2008 .

[11]  Jorge Bosch-Bayard,et al.  Innovations orthogonalization: a solution to the major pitfalls of EEG/MEG “leakage correction” , 2017, bioRxiv.

[12]  Dietrich Lehmann,et al.  Assessing direct paths of intracortical causal information flow of oscillatory activity with the isolated effective coherence (iCoh) , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[13]  R. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Interpreting magnetic fields of the brain: minimum norm estimates , 2006, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[14]  W. Drongelen,et al.  Localization of brain electrical activity via linearly constrained minimum variance spatial filtering , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[15]  Eduardo Martínez-Montes,et al.  EEG source imaging with spatio‐temporal tomographic nonnegative independent component analysis , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[16]  R D Pascual-Marqui,et al.  Standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA): technical details. , 2002, Methods and findings in experimental and clinical pharmacology.

[17]  Roberto D. Pascual-Marqui,et al.  Discrete, 3D distributed, linear imaging methods of electric neuronal activity. Part 1: exact, zero error localization , 2007, 0710.3341.

[18]  Rolando J. Biscay-Lirio,et al.  Assessing interactions in the brain with exact low-resolution electromagnetic tomography , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[19]  E. Halgren,et al.  Dynamic Statistical Parametric Mapping Combining fMRI and MEG for High-Resolution Imaging of Cortical Activity , 2000, Neuron.

[20]  Laura Astolfi,et al.  Effect of head volume conduction on directed connectivity estimated between reconstructed EEG sources , 2018, bioRxiv.

[21]  Gareth R. Barnes,et al.  Quantifying the performance of MEG source reconstruction using resting state data , 2018, NeuroImage.