Optimal reference electrode selection for electric source imaging

Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology

Volumn 99, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 163-173

  Gencer N G ^a,c   Williamson, S J ^a   Gueziec, A ^b,d   Hummel, R ^b  

^a POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^d IBM T J WATSON RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Electroencephalography; Reference electrode selection; Singular value decomposition; Truncated pseudoinverse

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN CORTEX; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTRODE; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; TISSUE SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0030221889     PISSN: 00134694     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(96)95139-1     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Albert, A. Regression and the Moore-Penrose Pseudoinverse. Academic Press, New York, 1972.
2. Desmedt, J.E., Chalkin, V. and Tomberg, C. Emulation of somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) components with the 3-shell head model and the problem of 'Ghost potential fields' when using an average reference in brain mapping. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1990, 77: 243-258.
3. Gençer, N.G., Íder, Y.Z. and Williamson, S.J. Electrical impedance tomography: induced-current imaging achieved with a multiple coil system. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 1996, 43: 139-149.
4. George, J.S., Lewis, P.S., Ranken, D.M., Kaplan, L., and Wood, C.C. Anatomical constraints for neuromagnetic source models. SPIE, 1991, 1443: 37-51.
5. Golub, G.H. and Van Loan, C.F. Matrix Computations, 2nd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1989.
6. Guéziec, A. Surface Simplification with Variable Tolerance. Second Annu. Int. Symp. Med. Rob. Comp. Asst. Surg., Baltimore, 1995: 132-139.
7. Guéziec, A. and Dean, D. The wrapper: a surface optimization algorithm that preserves highly curved surfaces. In: R.A. Robb (Ed.), Visualization in Biomedical Computing. Bellingham, Washington, 1994, pp. 631-642.
8. Guéziec, A. and Hummel, R. Exploiting triangulated surface extraction using tetrahedral decomposition. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comp. Graph., 1995, 1: 328-342.
9. Hughett, P. An optimal constrained linear inverse method for magnetic source imaging. Ann. Biomed. Eng., 1995, 23: 506-523.
10. Jackson, D.D. Interpretation of inaccurate, insufficient and iǹconsistent data. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 1972, 28: 97-109.
11. Jeffs, B., Leahy, R., and Singh, M. An evaluation of methods for neuromagnetic image reconstruction. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 1987, BME-34: 713-723.
12. Kaufman, L., Kaufman, J., and Wang, J. On cortical folds and neuromagnetic fields. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1991, 79: 211-226.
13. Le, J. and Gevins, A. Method to reduce blur distortion from EEGs using a realistic head model. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 1993, 40: 517-528.
14. Le, J., Menon, V., and Gevins, A. Local estimate of surface Laplacian derivation on a realistically shaped scalp surface. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1994, 92: 433-441.
15. Lehmann, D. and Skrandies, W. Reference-free identification of components of checkerboard-evoked multichannel potential fields. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1980, 48: 609-621.
16. Lehmann, D., Ozaki, H. and Pal, I. Averaging of spectral power and phase via vector diagram best fits without reference electrode or reference channel. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1986, 64: 350-363.
17. Lehtonen, J.B. and Koivikko, M.J. The use of a noncephalic reference electrode in recording cerebral evoked potentials in man. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1971, 31: 154-156.
18. Moore, E.H. On the reciprocal of the general algebraic matrix. Bull. Am. Math. Soc., 1920, 26: 394-395.
19. Nunez, P.L. Removal of reference electrode and volume conduction effects by spatial deconvolution of evoked potentials using a three-concentric sphere model of the head. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1987, 39 (Suppl.): 143-148.
20. Penrose, R. A generalized inverse for matrices. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 1955, 51: 406-413.
21. Shim, Y.S. and Cho, Z.H. SVD pseudoinversion image reconstruction. IEEE Trans, Biomed. Eng., 1981, ASSP-29: 904-909.
22. Stok, C.J. The Inverse Problem in EEG and MEG with Applications to Visual Evoked Responses. Krisp Repro Meppel, Leiden, 1986.
23. Tripp, J.H. Physical concepts and mathematical models. In: S.J. Williamson, G. Romani, L. Kaufman and I. Modena (Eds.), Biomagnetism: an Interdisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press, New York, 1983, pp. 101-139.
24. Wang, J., Williamson, S.J., and Kaufman, L. Magnetic source images determined by a lead-field analysis: the unique minimum-norm least-squares estimation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 1992, 39: 665-675.
25. Wolpaw, J.R. and Wood, C.C. Scalp distribution of human auditory evoked potentials, 1: evaluation of reference electrode sites. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1982, 54: 15-24.