A theoretical formulation of the electrophysiological inverse problem on the sphere

The construction of three-dimensional images of the primary current density (PCD) produced by neuronal activity is a problem of great current interest in the neuroimaging community, though being initially formulated in the 1970s. There exist even now enthusiastic debates about the authenticity of most of the inverse solutions proposed in the literature, in which low resolution electrical tomography (LORETA) is a focus of attention. However, in our opinion, the capabilities and limitations of the electro and magneto encephalographic techniques to determine PCD configurations have not been extensively explored from a theoretical framework, even for simple volume conductor models of the head. In this paper, the electrophysiological inverse problem for the spherical head model is cast in terms of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHS) formalism, which allows us to identify the null spaces of the implicated linear integral operators and also to define their representers. The PCD are described in terms of a continuous basis for the RKHS, which explicitly separates the harmonic and non-harmonic components. The RKHS concept permits us to bring LORETA into the scope of the general smoothing splines theory. A particular way of calculating the general smoothing splines is illustrated, avoiding a brute force discretization prematurely. The Bayes information criterion is used to handle dissimilarities in the signal/noise ratios and physical dimensions of the measurement modalities, which could affect the estimation of the amount of smoothness required for that class of inverse solution to be well specified. In order to validate the proposed method, we have estimated the 3D spherical smoothing splines from two data sets: electric potentials obtained from a skull phantom and magnetic fields recorded from subjects performing an experiment of human faces recognition.

[1]  I F Gorodnitsky,et al.  Neuromagnetic source imaging with FOCUSS: a recursive weighted minimum norm algorithm. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[2]  R. Leahy,et al.  On MEG forward modelling using multipolar expansions. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  R Kawashima,et al.  Different time course between scene processing and face processing: a MEG study. , 1999, Neuroreport.

[4]  J J Riera,et al.  Evaluation of inverse methods and head models for EEG source localization using a human skull phantom , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  D. Geselowitz,et al.  Model studies of the magnetocardiogram. , 1973, Biophysical journal.

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

[7]  S. Axler,et al.  Harmonic Function Theory , 1992 .

[8]  H. Helmholtz Ueber einige Gesetze der Vertheilung elektrischer Ströme in körperlichen Leitern mit Anwendung auf die thierisch‐elektrischen Versuche , 1853 .

[9]  T. Schormann,et al.  Functional delineation of the human occipito-temporal areas related to face and scene processing. A PET study. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[10]  Jorge J. Riera,et al.  EEG-distributed inverse solutions for a spherical head model , 1998 .

[11]  Tohru Ozaki,et al.  Recursive penalized least squares solution for dynamical inverse problems of EEG generation , 2004, Human brain mapping.

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

[13]  D. A. Driscoll,et al.  EEG electrode sensitivity--an application of reciprocity. , 1969, IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering.

[14]  G. Kitagawa,et al.  A Smoothness Priors–State Space Modeling of Time Series with Trend and Seasonality , 1984 .

[15]  A. S. Fokas,et al.  The unique determination of neuronal currents in the brain via magnetoencephalography , 2004 .

[16]  A. Ioannides,et al.  Continuous probabilistic solutions to the biomagnetic inverse problem , 1990 .

[17]  I. Gelfand,et al.  Inversion method for magnetoencephalography , 1996 .

[18]  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.

[19]  D. Cohen,et al.  Demonstration of useful differences between magnetoencephalogram and electroencephalogram. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[20]  Nelson J. Trujillo-Barreto,et al.  Bayesian model averaging in EEG/MEG imaging , 2004, NeuroImage.

[21]  S. J. Swithenby,et al.  A Bayesian test for the appropriateness of a model in the biomagnetic inverse problem , 1999 .

[22]  D Bessis,et al.  On the uniqueness of the surface sources of evoked potentials. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[24]  G. Wahba,et al.  Some results on Tchebycheffian spline functions , 1971 .

[25]  J. Riera,et al.  Electric lead field for a piecewise homogeneous volume conductor model of the head , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

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