Influences of skull segmentation inaccuracies on EEG source analysis

The low-conducting human skull is known to have an especially large influence on electroencephalography (EEG) source analysis. Because of difficulties segmenting the complex skull geometry out of magnetic resonance images, volume conductor models for EEG source analysis might contain inaccuracies and simplifications regarding the geometry of the skull. The computer simulation study presented here investigated the influences of a variety of skull geometry deficiencies on EEG forward simulations and source reconstruction from EEG data. Reference EEG data was simulated in a detailed and anatomically plausible reference model. Test models were derived from the reference model representing a variety of skull geometry inaccuracies and simplifications. These included erroneous skull holes, local errors in skull thickness, modeling cavities as bone, downward extension of the model and simplifying the inferior skull or the inferior skull and scalp as layers of constant thickness. The reference EEG data was compared to forward simulations in the test models, and source reconstruction in the test models was performed on the simulated reference data. The finite element method with high-resolution meshes was employed for all forward simulations. It was found that large skull geometry inaccuracies close to the source space, for example, when cutting the model directly below the skull, led to errors of 20mm and more for extended source space regions. Local defects, for example, erroneous skull holes, caused non-negligible errors only in the vicinity of the defect. The study design allowed a comparison of influence size, and guidelines for modeling the skull geometry were concluded.

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

[2]  R. T. Hart,et al.  Finite-element model of the human head: scalp potentials due to dipole sources , 1991, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[3]  P. Bruno,et al.  Referenced EEG and head volume conductor model: geometry and parametrical setting , 2004, The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[4]  Y. D'Asseler,et al.  A finite difference method with reciprocity used to incorporate anisotropy in electroencephalogram dipole source localization , 2005 .

[5]  Scott Makeig,et al.  Neuroelectromagnetic Forward Head Modeling Toolbox , 2010, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[6]  G. Comi,et al.  IFCN standards for digital recording of clinical EEG. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. , 1998, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[7]  S. K. Law,et al.  Thickness and resistivity variations over the upper surface of the human skull , 2005, Brain Topography.

[8]  Alistair I. Mees,et al.  Dynamics of brain electrical activity , 2005, Brain Topography.

[9]  W. Sutherling,et al.  Conductivities of Three-Layer Live Human Skull , 2004, Brain Topography.

[10]  Olivier D. Faugeras,et al.  A common formalism for the Integral formulations of the forward EEG problem , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  Katrina Wendel,et al.  The Influence of CSF on EEG Sensitivity Distributions of Multilayered Head Models , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[12]  J. D. Munck.  The potential distribution in a layered anisotropic spheroidal volume conductor , 1988 .

[13]  M Wagner,et al.  Inverse localization of electric dipole current sources in finite element models of the human head. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[14]  Paolo Inchingolo,et al.  Head model extension for the study of bioelectric phenomena. , 2003, Biomedical sciences instrumentation.

[15]  Stephen M Smith,et al.  Fast robust automated brain extraction , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[16]  Jing Li,et al.  Effects of holes on EEG forward solutions using a realistic geometry head model , 2007, Journal of neural engineering.

[17]  C H Wolters,et al.  Accuracy and run-time comparison for different potential approaches and iterative solvers in finite element method based EEG source analysis. , 2009, Applied numerical mathematics : transactions of IMACS.

[18]  E. Somersalo,et al.  Statistical inverse problems: discretization, model reduction and inverse crimes , 2007 .

[19]  J. Pernier,et al.  A systematic evaluation of the spherical model accuracy in EEG dipole localization. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[20]  C. E. Acar,et al.  Sensitivity of EEG and MEG measurements to tissue conductivity , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  P. Berg,et al.  A fast method for forward computation of multiple-shell spherical head models. , 1994, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[22]  R. Sadleir,et al.  Modeling Skull Electrical Properties , 2007, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[23]  Simon K. Warfield,et al.  EEG source analysis of epileptiform activity using a 1 mm anisotropic hexahedra finite element head model , 2009, NeuroImage.

[24]  Stephen M. Smith,et al.  Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[25]  M. Peters,et al.  Volume conduction effects in EEG and MEG. , 1998, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[26]  R. Oostenveld,et al.  Validating the boundary element method for forward and inverse EEG computations in the presence of a hole in the skull , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[27]  J. Gotman,et al.  Modeling of post-surgical brain and skull defects in the EEG inverse problem with the boundary element method , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[28]  A. Irimia.  Electric field and potential calculation for a bioelectric current dipole in an ellipsoid , 2005 .

[29]  G. Marchal,et al.  Multi-modal volume registration by maximization of mutual information , 1997 .

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

[31]  J. Haueisen,et al.  Role of Soft Bone, CSF and Gray Matter in EEG Simulations , 2003, Brain Topography.

[32]  David Atkinson,et al.  Use of anisotropic modelling in electrical impedance tomography; Description of method and preliminary assessment of utility in imaging brain function in the adult human head , 2008, NeuroImage.

[33]  Bart Vanrumste,et al.  EEG/MEG Source Imaging: Methods, Challenges, and Open Issues , 2009, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[34]  Moritz Dannhauer,et al.  Modeling of the human skull in EEG source analysis , 2011, Human brain mapping.

[35]  J. Haueisen,et al.  The Influence of Brain Tissue Anisotropy on Human EEG and MEG , 2002, NeuroImage.

[36]  Carsten H. Wolters,et al.  Influence of head tissue conductivity anisotropy on human EEG and MEG using fast high resolution finite element modeling, based on a parallel algebraic multigrid solver , 2001 .

[37]  A. Aarabi,et al.  High‐resolution electroencephalography and source localization in neonates , 2008, Human brain mapping.

[38]  D. Wilton,et al.  Computational aspects of finite element modeling in EEG source localization , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[39]  Carsten H. Wolters,et al.  Geometry-Adapted Hexahedral Meshes Improve Accuracy of Finite-Element-Method-Based EEG Source Analysis , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[40]  Thom F. Oostendorp,et al.  The conductivity of the human skull: results of in vivo and in vitro measurements , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[41]  Jens Haueisen,et al.  Influence of anisotropic electrical conductivity in white matter tissue on the EEG/MEG forward and inverse solution. A high-resolution whole head simulation study , 2010, NeuroImage.

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

[43]  W. Hackbusch,et al.  Efficient Computation of Lead Field Bases and Influence Matrix for the FEM-based EEG and MEG Inverse Problem. Part I: Complexity Considerations , 2003 .

[44]  Andreea C. Bostan,et al.  Study of conducting volume boundary influence on source localization using a realistic MEG phantom , 2007 .

[45]  I. Lemahieu,et al.  Dipole location errors in electroencephalogram source analysis due to volume conductor model errors , 2000, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[46]  Harald Köstler,et al.  Numerical Mathematics of the Subtraction Method for the Modeling of a Current Dipole in EEG Source Reconstruction Using Finite Element Head Models , 2007, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[47]  J. Haueisen,et al.  On the influence of volume currents and extended sources on neuromagnetic fields: A simulation study , 1995, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[48]  M. Aurada,et al.  Convergence of adaptive BEM for some mixed boundary value problem , 2012, Applied numerical mathematics : transactions of IMACS.

[49]  H. Spekreijse,et al.  Mathematical dipoles are adequate to describe realistic generators of human brain activity , 1988, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[50]  David R. Wozny,et al.  The electrical conductivity of human cerebrospinal fluid at body temperature , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[51]  Sylvain Baillet,et al.  Influence of skull anisotropy for the forward and inverse problem in EEG: Simulation studies using FEM on realistic head models , 1998, Human brain mapping.

[52]  B.N. Cuffin,et al.  Effects of local variations in skull and scalp thickness on EEG's and MEG's , 1993, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[53]  Onno W. Weier,et al.  On the numerical accuracy of the boundary element method (EEG application) , 1989, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.