How can EEG/MEG and fMRI/PET data be combined?

In the last few years, the functional brain imaging community has witnessed numerous efforts (and perhaps even more discussion) directed at multimodality data fusion: combining high-quality localization information provided by the hemodynamic-based brain imaging methods such as PET and fMRI with highquality temporal data generated by the electromagnetic-based techniques such as EEG and MEG [Dale and Halgren, 2001]. The article in this issue by Vitacco et al. [2002] provides an interesting research effort aimed at this problem, one that forces us to confront a number of critical questions about the entire data fusion enterprise. Almost every neuroscientist, and certainly every functional neuroimager, tries in one way or another to combine data from multiple methods. Three distinct approaches are used.

[1]  C. C. Wood,et al.  Interpretation of evoked potentials: a neurophysiological perspective. , 1981, Canadian journal of psychology.

[2]  R. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Magnetoencephalography-theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain , 1993 .

[3]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Synthetic PET: Analyzing large‐scale properties of neural networks , 1994 .

[4]  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.

[5]  C C Wood,et al.  Mapping function in the human brain with magnetoencephalography, anatomical magnetic resonance imaging, and functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 1995, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[6]  L. Parsons,et al.  Beyond the single study: function/location metanalysis in cognitive neuroimaging , 1998, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[7]  B. Horwitz,et al.  Integrating electrophysiological and anatomical experimental data to create a large-scale model that simulates a delayed match-to-sample human brain imaging study. , 1998, Cerebral cortex.

[8]  R J Ilmoniemi,et al.  Spatiotemporal activity of a cortical network for processing visual motion revealed by MEG and fMRI. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[9]  A. McIntosh,et al.  Neural modeling, functional brain imaging, and cognition , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Neural modeling and functional brain imaging: an overview , 2000, Neural Networks.

[11]  E. Halgren,et al.  Spatiotemporal mapping of brain activity by integration of multiple imaging modalities , 2001, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[12]  L. Krubitzer,et al.  Evidence for interhemispheric processing of inputs from the hands in human S2 and PV. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  Deborah A. Vitacco,et al.  Correspondence of event‐related potential tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging during language processing , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[14]  Gustavo Deco,et al.  Large-scale neural model for visual attention: integration of experimental single-cell and fMRI data. , 2002, Cerebral cortex.

[15]  David Poeppel,et al.  Application of an MEG eigenspace beamformer to reconstructing spatio‐temporal activities of neural sources , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[16]  P. Nunez,et al.  On the Relationship of Synaptic Activity to Macroscopic Measurements: Does Co-Registration of EEG with fMRI Make Sense? , 2004, Brain Topography.