Development of Volume Conductor and Source Models to Localize Epileptic Foci

Summary: There is increasing interest in mapping and source reconstruction from electrocorticoencephalographic (ECoG) grid data and comparison to surface EEG evaluations of epileptic patients. ECoG mapping onto three-dimensional renderings of the individual cortical anatomy derived from magnetic resonance images and computed tomography (CT) is performed after coregistration of anatomical and functional coordinate systems. Source reconstructions from ECoG and EEG are compared using different source models and realistically shaped volume conductor models. Realistically shaped volume conductor models for EEG source reconstruction are a prerequisite for improved localization accuracy. Individual boundary element method (BEM) models derived from MRI represent the “gold standard” and can approximate isotropic homogeneous head compartments and thus give an improved description of the head shape as compared with classical oversimplifying spherical shell models. Anisotropic volume conduction properties of the bone layer or the white matter fibers can be described by the finite element method (FEM); unfortunately, these models require a huge computational effort and are thus not used in daily applications. To avoid this computational effort, head models derived from an averaged MRI dataset can be used. Highly refined models with a large number of nodes and thus better numerical accuracy can be used by this approach, because the setup is performed only once and the decomposed models or precomputed leadfield matrices are saved for later application. Individual image data are not at all needed, if an overlay of the reconstruction results with the anatomy is not desired. With precomputed leadfield matrices and linear interpolation techniques, at least standardized BEM and FEM volume conductor models derived from averaged MRI datasets can achieve the same computational speed as analytical spherical models. The smoothed cortical envelope is used as a realistically shaped single-shell volume conductor model for ECoG source reconstruction, whereas three-compartment BEM-models are required for EEG. The authors describe how to localize ECoG-grid electrode positions and how to segment the cortical surface from coregistered magnetic resonance and CT images. Landmark-based coregistration is performed using common fiducials in both image modalities. Another more promising automatic approach is based on mutual three-dimensional volume gray-level information. The ECoG electrode positions can be retrieved from three-dimensional CT slices manually using cursors in thresholded images with depth information. Alternatively, the smoothed envelope of the cortical surface segmented from the MRI is used to semiautomatically determine the grid electrode positions by marking the four corners and measuring distances along the smoothed surface. With extended source patches for cortically constrained scans and current density reconstructions, results from ECoG and surface EEG data were compared. Single equivalent dipoles were used to explain the EEG far fields, and results were compared with the original current density distributions explaining the ECoG data. The authors studied the performance of spherical and realistically shaped BEM volume conductor models for EEG and ECoG source reconstruction in spherical and nonspherical parts of the head with simulations and measured epileptic spike data. Only small differences between spherical and realistically shaped models were found in the spherical parts of the head, whereas realistically shaped models are superior to spherical approximations in both single-shell ECoG and three-shell EEG cases in the nonspherical parts, such as the temporal lobe areas. The ECoG near field is more complicated to interpret than the surface EEG far field and cannot be explained in general by simple equivalent dipoles. However, from simulations with realistically shaped volume conductor models and cortically constrained source models, the authors studied how the bone and skin layer act as spatial low pass filters that smooth and simplify the surface EEG maps generated by much more complicated-looking source configurations derived from measured ECoG data.

[1]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[2]  W. Walter,et al.  COMPARISON OF SUBCORTICAL, CORTICAL AND SCALP ACTIVITY USING CHRONICALLY INDWELLING ELECTRODES IN MAN. , 1965, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[3]  D. Geselowitz On bioelectric potentials in an inhomogeneous volume conductor. , 1967, Biophysical journal.

[4]  D. Geselowitz On the magnetic field generated outside an inhomogeneous volume conductor by internal current sources , 1970 .

[5]  A. van Oosterom,et al.  The Solid Angle of a Plane Triangle , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[6]  R D Sidman,et al.  A reliable method for localizing deep intracranial sources of the EEG , 1985, Neurology.

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

[8]  R. Hari,et al.  Spatial resolution of neuromagnetic records: theoretical calculations in a spherical model. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[9]  Onno W. Weier,et al.  On the numerical accuracy of the boundary element method (EEG application) , 1989, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[10]  F. A. Seiler,et al.  Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing , 1989 .

[11]  A. van Oosterom,et al.  Source parameter estimation in inhomogeneous volume conductors of arbitrary shape , 1989, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[12]  M. Hämäläinen,et al.  Realistic conductivity geometry model of the human head for interpretation of neuromagnetic data , 1989, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[13]  B.N. Cuffin,et al.  Effects of head shape on EEGs and MEGs , 1990, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  J. D. de Munck A linear discretization of the volume conductor boundary integral equation using analytically integrated elements (electrophysiology application) , 1992, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[15]  J.C. Mosher,et al.  Multiple dipole modeling and localization from spatio-temporal MEG data , 1992, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[16]  J. D. Munck A linear discretization of the volume conductor boundary integral equation using analytically integrated elements (electrophysiology application) , 1992 .

[17]  K. Sekihara,et al.  Relationship between dipole parameter estimation errors and measurement conditions in magnetoencephalography , 1993, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[18]  A. S. Ferguson,et al.  A complete linear discretization for calculating the magnetic field using the boundary element method , 1994, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[19]  G. Fein,et al.  Improved method for computation of potentials in a realistic head shape model , 1995, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[20]  L. Heller,et al.  Evaluation of boundary element methods for the EEG forward problem: effect of linear interpolation , 1995, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[21]  J. Pernier,et al.  Improved forward EEG calculations using local mesh refinement of realistic head geometries. , 1995, Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology.

[22]  Charles L. Lawson,et al.  Solving least squares problems , 1976, Classics in applied mathematics.

[23]  J. Pernier,et al.  Improved dipole localization using local mesh refinement of realistic head geometries: an EEG simulation study. , 1996, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[24]  J. Ebersole Defining epileptogenic foci: past, present, future. , 1997, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[25]  A. S. Ferguson,et al.  Factors affecting the accuracy of the boundary element method in the forward problem. I. Calculating surface potentials , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[26]  M Wagner,et al.  Inverse localization of electric dipole current sources in finite element models of the human head. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[27]  H. Spekreijse,et al.  The accuracy of localizing equivalent dipoles and the spatio-temporal correlations of background EEG , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[28]  Ramesh Srinivasan,et al.  Bayesian estimates of error bounds for EEG source imaging , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[29]  M. Fuchs,et al.  An improved boundary element method for realistic volume-conductor modeling , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

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

[31]  T. Musha,et al.  Forward and inverse problems of EEG dipole localization. , 1999, Critical reviews in biomedical engineering.

[32]  Johan H. M. Frijns,et al.  Improving the accuracy of the boundary element method by the use of second-order interpolation functions [EEG modeling application] , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[33]  M. Peters,et al.  Estimation of the electric conductivity from scalp measurements: feasibility and application to source localization , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[34]  M. Fuchs,et al.  Boundary element method volume conductor models for EEG source reconstruction , 2001, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[35]  B Yvert,et al.  Fast realistic modeling in bioelectromagnetism using lead‐field interpolation , 2001, Human brain mapping.

[36]  J. J. Ermer,et al.  Rapidly recomputable EEG forward models for realistic head shapes. , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[37]  M. Fuchs,et al.  A standardized boundary element method volume conductor model , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

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

[40]  Kevin Whittingstall,et al.  Effects of dipole position, orientation and noise on the accuracy of EEG source localization , 2003, Biomedical engineering online.

[41]  W. Hackbusch,et al.  Efficient Computation of Lead Field Bases and Influence Matrix for the FEM-based EEG and MEG Inverse Problem. Part I: Complexity Considerations , 2003 .

[42]  M. Fuchs,et al.  Confidence limits of dipole source reconstruction results , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[43]  W. Sutherling,et al.  Conductivities of Three-Layer Live Human Skull , 2004, Brain Topography.

[44]  Bin He,et al.  A second-order finite element algorithm for solving the three-dimensional EEG forward problem. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[45]  J. Gotman,et al.  Dipole Modeling of Epileptic Spikes Can Be Accurate or Misleading , 2005, Epilepsia.

[46]  J. Haueisen,et al.  Role of Soft Bone, CSF and Gray Matter in EEG Simulations , 2003, Brain Topography.

[47]  S. K. Law,et al.  Thickness and resistivity variations over the upper surface of the human skull , 2005, Brain Topography.

[48]  M. Scherg,et al.  Models of brain sources , 2005, Brain Topography.

[49]  I. Lemahieu,et al.  Influence of measurement noise and electrode mislocalisation on EEG dipole-source localisation , 2000, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[50]  L. Geddes,et al.  The specific resistance of biological material—A compendium of data for the biomedical engineer and physiologist , 1967, Medical and biological engineering.