The coupled dipole model: an integrated model for multiple MEG/EEG data sets

Often MEG/EEG is measured in a few slightly different conditions to investigate the functionality of the human brain. This kind of data sets show similarities, though are different for each condition. When solving the inverse problem (IP), performing the source localization, one encounters the problem that this IP is ill-posed: constraints are necessary to solve and stabilize the solution to the IP. Moreover, a substantial amount of data is needed to avoid a signal to noise ratio (SNR) that is too poor for source localizations. In the case of similar conditions, this common information can be exploited by analyzing the data sets simultaneously. The here proposed coupled dipole model (CDM) provides an integrated method in which these similarities between conditions are used to solve and stabilize the inverse problem. The coupled dipole model is applicable when data sets contain common sources or common source time functions. The coupled dipole model uses a set of common sources and a set of common source time functions (STFs) to model all conditions in one single model. The data of each condition are mathematically described as a linear combination of these common spatial and common temporal components. This linear combination is specified in a coupling matrix for each data set. The coupled dipole model was applied in two simulation studies and in one experimental study. The simulations show that the errors in the estimated spatial and temporal parameters decrease compared to the standard separate analyses. A decrease in position error of a factor of 10 was shown for the localization of two nearby sources. In the experimental application, the coupled dipole model was shown to be necessary to obtain a plausible solution in at least 3 of 15 conditions investigated. Moreover, using the CDM, a direct comparison between parameters in different conditions is possible, whereas in separate models, the scaling of the amplitude parameters varies in general from data set to data set.

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

[2]  Bernice Porjesz,et al.  Trilinear Modeling of Event-Related Potentials , 2004, Brain Topography.

[3]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Cortical sources of the early components of the visual evoked potential , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[4]  Daniel Graupe,et al.  Topographic component (Parallel Factor) analysis of multichannel evoked potentials: Practical issues in trilinear spatiotemporal decomposition , 2005, Brain Topography.

[5]  A. Achim,et al.  Toward a dynamic topographic components model. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[6]  Fetsje Bijma,et al.  A maximum-likelihood estimator for trial-to-trial variations in noisy MEG/EEG data sets , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[7]  H. Spekreijse,et al.  Check size dependency of the sources of the hemifield-onset evoked potential , 2005, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[8]  J. Mocks,et al.  Topographic components model for event-related potentials and some biophysical considerations , 1988, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  R. Salmelin,et al.  Global optimization in the localization of neuromagnetic sources , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[10]  G Fein,et al.  Representation of multi-channel evoked potential data using a dipole component model of intracranial generators: application to the auditory P300. , 1990, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  M. Scherg,et al.  Two bilateral sources of the late AEP as identified by a spatio-temporal dipole model. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[12]  George Fein,et al.  Representation of multi-channel evoked potential data using a dipole component model of intracranial generators: application to the auditory P300☆ , 1990 .

[13]  J Möcks,et al.  Topographic components model for event-related potentials and some biophysical considerations. , 1988, IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering.

[14]  J. Magnus,et al.  Matrix Differential Calculus with Applications in Statistics and Econometrics , 2019, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.

[15]  Fetsje Bijma,et al.  A mathematical approach to the temporal stationarity of background noise in MEG/EEG measurements , 2003, NeuroImage.

[16]  Lourens J. Waldorp,et al.  Estimating stationary dipoles from MEG/EEG data contaminated with spatially and temporally correlated background noise , 2001, NeuroImage.

[17]  R D Pascual-Marqui,et al.  Brain mapping of bilateral visual interactions in children. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[18]  G. R Mangun,et al.  On the processing of spatial frequencies as revealed by evoked-potential source modeling , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[19]  R. Davidson,et al.  Visual evoked potential measures of interhemispheric transfer time in humans. , 1989, Behavioral neuroscience.

[20]  J.C. de Munck,et al.  A random dipole model for spontaneous brain activity , 1992, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[21]  Antoine Rémond,et al.  Methods of Analysis of Brain Electrical and Magnetic Signals , 1987 .