Estimating true brain connectivity from EEG/MEG data invariant to linear and static transformations in sensor space

The imaginary part of coherency is a measure to investigate the synchronization of brain sources on the EEG/MEG sensor level, robust to artifacts of volume conduction meaning that independent sources cannot generate a significant result. It does not mean, however, that volume conduction is irrelevant when true interactions are present. Here, we analyze in detail the possibilities to construct measures of true brain interactions which are strictly invariant to linear spatial transformations of the sensor data. Specifically, such measures can be constructed from maximization of imaginary coherency in virtual channels, bivariate measures as a corrected variate of imaginary coherence, and global measures indicating the total interaction contained within a space or between two spaces. A complete theoretic framework on this question is provided for second order statistical moments. Relations to existing linear and nonlinear approaches are presented. We applied the methods to resting state EEG data, showing clear interactions at all bands, and to a combined measurement of EEG and MEG during rest condition and a finger tapping task. We found that MEG was capable of observing brain interactions which were not observable in the EEG data.

[1]  M. Hallett,et al.  Identifying true brain interaction from EEG data using the imaginary part of coherency , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[2]  Wolf Singer,et al.  Neuronal Synchrony: A Versatile Code for the Definition of Relations? , 1999, Neuron.

[3]  Christoph Braun,et al.  Coherence of gamma-band EEG activity as a basis for associative learning , 1999, Nature.

[4]  W. Singer,et al.  Dynamic predictions: Oscillations and synchrony in top–down processing , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[5]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. , 1994 .

[6]  Heidi E Kirsch,et al.  Resting functional connectivity in patients with brain tumors in eloquent areas , 2011, Annals of neurology.

[7]  J. Hunt,et al.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 2015 .

[8]  P. Fries A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  C. Stam,et al.  Phase lag index: Assessment of functional connectivity from multi channel EEG and MEG with diminished bias from common sources , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[10]  K. Müller,et al.  Robustly estimating the flow direction of information in complex physical systems. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[11]  H. Saunders Literature Review : RANDOM DATA: ANALYSIS AND MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES J. S. Bendat and A.G. Piersol Wiley-Interscience, New York, N. Y. (1971) , 1974 .

[12]  Rolando J. Biscay-Lirio,et al.  Assessing interactions in the brain with exact low-resolution electromagnetic tomography , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[13]  Karen O. Egiazarian,et al.  Measuring directional coupling between EEG sources , 2008, NeuroImage.

[14]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  Identifying true cortical interactions in MEG using the nulling beamformer , 2010, NeuroImage.

[15]  Rupert G. Miller The jackknife-a review , 1974 .

[16]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  An improved index of phase-synchronization for electrophysiological data in the presence of volume-conduction, noise and sample-size bias , 2011, NeuroImage.

[17]  J. Martinerie,et al.  The brainweb: Phase synchronization and large-scale integration , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[18]  Roberto D. Pascual-Marqui,et al.  Instantaneous and lagged measurements of linear and nonlinear dependence between groups of multivariate time series: frequency decomposition , 2007, 0711.1455.

[19]  D. Goodin The cambridge dictionary of statistics , 1999 .

[20]  M. Peters,et al.  The volume conductor may act as a temporal filter on the ECG and EEG , 1998, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[21]  Ernesto Pereda,et al.  Assessment of electroencephalographic functional connectivity in term and preterm neonates , 2011, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[22]  D. B. Heppner,et al.  Considerations of quasi-stationarity in electrophysiological systems. , 1967, The Bulletin of mathematical biophysics.

[23]  D. Tucker,et al.  EEG coherency II: experimental comparisons of multiple measures , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[24]  Guido Nolte,et al.  Understanding brain connectivity from EEG data by identifying systems composed of interacting sources , 2008, NeuroImage.

[25]  S. N. Erné,et al.  Biomagnetic systems for clinical use , 2000 .

[26]  H. Hotelling Relations Between Two Sets of Variates , 1936 .

[27]  F. L. D. Silva,et al.  Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[28]  J. Schoffelen,et al.  Source connectivity analysis with MEG and EEG , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[29]  B. E. Eckbo,et al.  Appendix , 1826, Epilepsy Research.

[30]  Gabriel Curio,et al.  A novel method for reliable and fast extraction of neuronal EEG/MEG oscillations on the basis of spatio-spectral decomposition , 2011, NeuroImage.