In forward head modeling, various approximations are made in order to keep the problem tractable. Simplifications can yield models ranging from simple spherical models to multi-tessellated arbitrary surfaces in a boundary element model (BEM). Spherical head models differ in the number of shells and the assumed conductivities. Other assumptions in the BEM include the choice of basis sets, such as constant, linear, or quadratic variations of the voltages across the individual areal elements, or the selection of error-weighting method, such as collocation, Galerkin, or `direct` methods. Numerical versus analytic integration can also yield numerical differences. These differences in parameters and approximations can yield models whose external fields (EEG potentials or MEG magnetic fields) differ for the same internal source configuration. Quantitative measures are needed to determine if these differences are significant.
[1]
Biomagnetism : fundamental research and clinical applications : proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Biomagnetism
,
1995
.
[2]
N. Higham.
Review ofMatrix computations: Second edition by G.H. Golub and C.F. Van Loan☆
,
1990
.
[3]
J.C. Mosher,et al.
Multiple dipole modeling and localization from spatio-temporal MEG data
,
1992,
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.
[4]
M. E. Spencer,et al.
Error bounds for EEG and MEG dipole source localization.
,
1993,
Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.
[5]
Z. Zhang,et al.
A fast method to compute surface potentials generated by dipoles within multilayer anisotropic spheres.
,
1995,
Physics in medicine and biology.
[6]
P. Berg,et al.
A fast method for forward computation of multiple-shell spherical head models.
,
1994,
Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.
[7]
Richard M. Leahy,et al.
Comparison of the Constant and Linear Boundary Element Method for EEG and MEG Forward Modeling
,
2000
.