Dry phantom for magnetoencephalography —Configuration, calibration, and contribution

BACKGROUND An artificial object that imitates human brain activity is called "phantom" and is used for evaluation of magnetoencephalography (MEG) systems. The accuracy of the phantom itself had not been guaranteed in the previous studies, although role of the phantom is to evaluate the accuracy of MEG measurement. The purposes of this paper are to develop a novel MEG phantom that can be calibrated and to demonstrate the advantages of the calibrated phantoms. NEW METHOD We proposed and fabricated a practical dry phantom that is composed of 50 isosceles-triangle coils based on Ilmoniemi's model. This phantom was calibrated based on three-dimensional measurement of the current paths in the phantom and on numerical calculations. RESULTS The calibrated positions of the equivalent current dipoles (ECDs) shifted 0.83mm, on average, from the designed positions. The uncertainties of the calibrated ECDs were also evaluated, by combining the uncertainties which could reasonably be attributed to them. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S) Furthermore, we demonstrated performance of the developed phantom through experimental evaluation of an MEG system. The results of this evaluation differed from those obtained using an uncalibrated phantom. Moreover, the calibrated phantom can provide detailed information regarding the uncertainty of the measurement and also the uncertainty of the phantom itself. CONCLUSIONS A more appropriate evaluation of MEG measurements can be achieved using a calibrated phantom.

[1]  Y. Adachi,et al.  Magnetoencephalogram systems developed at KIT , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity.

[2]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  MEG-based imaging of focal neuronal current sources , 1996, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[3]  Hyukchan Kwon,et al.  Note: optical receiver system for 152-channel magnetoencephalography. , 2014, The Review of scientific instruments.

[4]  Heidi E Kirsch,et al.  American Clinical Magnetoencephalography Society Clinical Practice Guideline 2: Presurgical Functional Brain Mapping Using Magnetic Evoked Fields* , 2011, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[5]  Tal Linzen,et al.  The role of morphology in phoneme prediction: Evidence from MEG , 2014, Brain and Language.

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

[7]  D. Hoffman,et al.  Magnetoencephalography with an atomic magnetometer , 2006 .

[8]  H Hosaka,et al.  Part II: magnetic field produced by a current dipole. , 1976, Journal of electrocardiology.

[9]  Gen Uehara,et al.  An error in magnetic field of isosceles-triangle coil as a representation of equivalent current dipole , 2007 .

[10]  Lucas C. Parra,et al.  Joint decorrelation, a versatile tool for multichannel data analysis , 2014, NeuroImage.

[11]  Shirin Sarkari,et al.  Toward the Substitution of Invasive Electroencephalography in Epilepsy Surgery , 2005, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[12]  Alain de Cheveigné,et al.  Time-shift denoising source separation , 2010, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[13]  Robert H Kraus,et al.  Microtesla MRI of the human brain combined with MEG. , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance.

[14]  John S Ebersole,et al.  American Clinical Magnetoencephalography Society Clinical Practice Guideline 1: Recording and Analysis of Spontaneous Cerebral Activity* , 2011, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[15]  R Llinás,et al.  Magnetic localization of neuronal activity in the human brain. , 1988, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Joachim Gross,et al.  Good practice for conducting and reporting MEG research , 2013, NeuroImage.

[17]  Wei He,et al.  Face processing in the brains of pre-school aged children measured with MEG , 2015, NeuroImage.

[18]  Jukka Nenonen,et al.  Improving MEG Performance With Additional Tangential Sensors , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[19]  M. E. Spencer,et al.  A Study of Dipole Localization Accuracy for MEG and EEG using a Human Skull Phantom , 1998, NeuroImage.

[20]  M. Yumoto,et al.  Evaluation of an Isosceles-Triangle-Coil Phantom for Magnetoencephalography , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics.

[21]  P. Volegov,et al.  Source Localization Precision of the Superconducting Imaging-Surface MEG System , 2001 .

[22]  Isamu Ozaki,et al.  Publication criteria for evoked magnetic fields of the human brain: A proposal , 2012, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[23]  J. Dammers,et al.  Source localization of brain activity using helium-free interferometer , 2014 .

[24]  Jari Penttilä,et al.  Hybrid ultra‐low‐field MRI and magnetoencephalography system based on a commercial whole‐head neuromagnetometer , 2013, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[25]  S Della Penna,et al.  Calibration of a multichannel MEG system based on the signal space separation method. , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.