Multimodal integration of EEG and MEG data: A simulation study with variable signal‐to‐noise ratio and number of sensors

Previous simulation studies have stressed the importance of the multimodal integration of electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) data in the estimation of cortical current density. In such studies, no systematic variations of the signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) and of the number of sensors were explicitly taken into account in the estimation process. We investigated effects of variable SNR and number of sensors on the accuracy of current density estimate by using multimodal EEG and MEG data. This was done by using as the dependent variable both the correlation coefficient (CC) and the relative error (RE) between imposed and estimated waveforms at the level of cortical region of interests (ROI). A realistic head and cortical surface model was used. Factors used in the simulations were: (1) the SNR of the simulated scalp data (with seven levels: infinite, 30, 20, 10, 5, 3, 1); (2) the particular inverse operator used to estimate the cortical source activity from the simulated scalp data (INVERSE, with two levels, including minimum norm and weighted minimum norm); and (3) the number of EEG or MEG sensors employed in the analysis (SENSORS, with three levels: 128, 61, 29 for EEG and 153, 61, or 38 in MEG). Analysis of variance demonstrated that all the considered factors significantly affect the CC and the RE indexes. Combined EEG–MEG data produced statistically significant lower RE and higher CC in source current density reconstructions compared to that estimated by the EEG and MEG data considered separately. These observations hold for the range of SNR values presented by the analyzed data. The superiority of current density estimation by multimodal integration of EEG and MEG was not due to differences in number of sensors between unimodal (EEG, MEG) and combined (EEG–MEG) inverse estimates. In fact, the current density estimate relative to the EEG–MEG multimodal integration involved 61 EEG plus 63 MEG sensors, whereas estimations carried out with the single modalities alone involved 128 sensors for EEG and 153 sensors for MEG. The results of the simulations also suggest that the use of simultaneous 29 EEG sensors during the MEG measurements carried out with full sensor arrangements (153 sensors) returned an accuracy of the cortical source estimate statistically similar to that obtained by combining 64 EEG and 153 MEG sensors. Hum. Brain Mapp. 22:54–64, 2004. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  D. Regan.  Human brain electrophysiology: Evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine , 1989 .

[2]  H. Lüders,et al.  American Electroencephalographic Society Guidelines for Standard Electrode Position Nomenclature , 1991, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[3]  Per Christian Hansen,et al.  Analysis of Discrete Ill-Posed Problems by Means of the L-Curve , 1992, SIAM Rev..

[4]  A. Dale,et al.  Improved Localizadon of Cortical Activity by Combining EEG and MEG with MRI Cortical Surface Reconstruction: A Linear Approach , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[5]  W. J. Nowack.  Neocortical Dynamics and Human EEG Rhythms , 1995, Neurology.

[6]  R M Leahy,et al.  Imaging neural activity using MEG and EEG. , 1997, IEEE engineering in medicine and biology magazine : the quarterly magazine of the Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society.

[7]  Sylvain Baillet,et al.  A Bayesian approach to introducing anatomo-functional priors in the EEG/MEG inverse problem , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  S. Salenius,et al.  Roles of attention, memory, and motor preparation in modulating human brain activity in a spatial working memory task. , 1998, Cerebral cortex.

[9]  M Steriade,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of sleep delta waves. , 1998, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[10]  M Wagner,et al.  Improving source reconstructions by combining bioelectric and biomagnetic data. , 1998, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  R J Ilmoniemi,et al.  Spatiotemporal activity of a cortical network for processing visual motion revealed by MEG and fMRI. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  E. Somersalo,et al.  Visualization of Magnetoencephalographic Data Using Minimum Current Estimates , 1999, NeuroImage.

[13]  L. Garnero,et al.  Combined MEG and EEG source imaging by minimization of mutual information , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  S. G. Andino,et al.  Distributed Source Models: Standard Solutions and New Developments , 1999 .

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

[16]  Arthur K. Liu,et al.  Spatiotemporal brain imaging , 2000 .

[17]  H. Otsubo,et al.  MEG Predicts Epileptic Zone in Lesional Extrahippocampal Epilepsy: 12 Pediatric Surgery Cases , 2001, Epilepsia.

[18]  Hannu J. Aronen,et al.  Evidence for Dissociation of Spatial and Nonspatial Auditory Information Processing , 2001, NeuroImage.

[19]  F Cincotti,et al.  Linear inverse source estimate of combined EEG and MEG data related to voluntary movements , 2001, Human brain mapping.

[20]  Olivier David,et al.  Estimation of neural dynamics from MEG/EEG cortical current density maps: application to the reconstruction of large-scale cortical synchrony , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[21]  Tatsu Kobayakawa,et al.  Gustatory evoked cortical activity in humans studied by simultaneous EEG and MEG recording. , 2002, Chemical senses.

[22]  Claudio Babiloni,et al.  Comparison between SI and SII responses as a function of stimulus intensity , 2002, Neuroreport.

[23]  John W Belliveau,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation studies of EEG and MEG localization accuracy , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[24]  Riitta Hari,et al.  Comparison of Minimum Current Estimate and Dipole Modeling in the Analysis of Simulated Activity in the Human Visual Cortices , 2002, NeuroImage.

[25]  Maeike Zijlmans,et al.  Modality-specific Spike Identification in Simultaneous Magnetoencephalography/Electroencephalography: A Methodological Approach , 2002, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[26]  Lourens J. Waldorp,et al.  Spatiotemporal EEG/MEG source analysis based on a parametric noise covariance model , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[27]  Jens Haueisen,et al.  Dipole models for the EEG and MEG , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[28]  Tomoyuki Nakahori,et al.  Benefit of Simultaneous Recording of EEG and MEG in Dipole Localization , 2002, Epilepsia.

[29]  Per Christian Hansen,et al.  REGULARIZATION TOOLS: A Matlab package for analysis and solution of discrete ill-posed problems , 1994, Numerical Algorithms.