General bounds for electrode mislocation on the EEG inverse problem

Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

Volumn 103, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 1-9

  Beltrachini, L ^a   von Ellenrieder, N ^a   Muravchik, C H ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE LA PLATA   (Argentina)

Author keywords

Cram r Rao bound; EEG; Electrode mislocation; Inverse problem

Indexed keywords

DEPTH ESTIMATION; DIPOLAR SOURCES; FORWARD PROBLEM; LOWER BOUNDS; SHAPE MODEL; STANDARD DEVIATION; WORST CASE;

BOUNDARY ELEMENT METHOD; ELECTRODES; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; MEASUREMENT ERRORS; STATISTICS;

INVERSE PROBLEMS;

ARTICLE; BRAIN NERVE CELL; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTRODE; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; SCALP;

ALGORITHMS; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTRODES; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 79958135943     PISSN: 01692607     EISSN: 18727565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2010.05.008     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Muravchik C., Nehorai A. EEG/MEG error bounds for a static dipole source with a realistic head model. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2001, 49(3):470-484.
2. Huizenga H., de Munck J., Waldorp L., Grasman R. Spatiotemporal EEG/MEG source analysis based on a parametric noise covariance model. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2002, 49(6):533-539.
3. von Ellenrieder N., Muravchik C., Nehorai A. Effects of geometric head model perturbations on the EEG inverse problem. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2006, 53(2):249-257.
4. Ollikainen J., Vauhkonen M., Karjalainen P.A., Kaipio J.P. Effects of local skull inhomogeneities on EEG source estimation. Med. Eng. Phys. 1999, 21:143-154.
5. Wendel K., Narra N.G., Hannula M., Kauppinen P., Malmivuo J. The influence of CSF on EEG sensitivity distributions of multilayered head models. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2008, 55(4):1454-1456.
6. Wolters C.H., Anwander A., Weinstein D., Koch M., Tricoche X., MacLeod R.S. Influence of tissue conductivity anisotropy on EEG/MEG field and return current computation in a realistic head model: a simulation and visualization study using high-resolution finite element modeling. NeuroImage 2006, 30(3):813-826.
7. de Munck J., Vijn P., Spekreijse H. A practical method for determining electrode positions on the head. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1991, 78(1):85-87.
8. Wang M., Maurer C., Fitzpatrick J., Maciunas R. An automatic technique for finding and localizing externally attached markers in CT and MR volume images of the head. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 1996, 43(6):627-637.
9. Yoo S., Guttmann C.R., Ives J., Panych L., Kikinis R., Schomer D., Jolesz F. 3D localization of surface 10-20 EEG electrodes on high resolution anatomical MR images. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophisiol. 1997, 102:335-339.
10. von Ellenrieder N., Beltrachini L., Blenkmann A., Martín J.S., Kochen S., Muravchik C. Determinación de la ubicación de electrodos de EEG basada en fotografías digitales. XIII Reunión de Trabajo en Procesamiento de la Información y Control (RPIC 2009) 2009, 867-880.
11. Khosla D., Don M., Kwong B. Spatial mislocation of EEG electrodes-effects on accuracy of dipole estimation. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1999, 110(2):261-271.
12. Kavanagh R., Darcey T., Lehmann D., Fender D. Evaluation of methods for three-dimensional localization of electrical sources in the human brain. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 1978, 25(5):421-429.
13. Towle V., Bolaños J., Suarez D., Tan K., Grzeszczuk R., Levin D., Cakmur R., Frank S., Spire J. The spatial location of EEG electrodes: locating the best-fitting sphere relative to cortical anatomy. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1993, 86:1-6.
14. Hoey G.V., Vanrumste B., D'Havé M., de Walle R.V., Lemahieu I., Boon P. Influence of measurement noise and electrode mislocalisation on EEG dipole-source localisation. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2000, 38(3):287-296.
15. Bruno P., Vatta F., Inchingolo P. Influence of EEG measurement montage on source localization error bounds due to head modeling errors caused by brain lesions. Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS 2004, 825-828.
16. Wang M., Gotman J. The influence of electrode location errors on EEG dipole source localization with a realistic head model. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2001, 112:1777-1780.
17. Kay S.M. Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory, Signal Processing Series 1993, Prentice-Hall.
18. de Munck J., Dijk B.V., Spekreijse H. Mathematical dipoles are adequate to describe realistic generators of human brain activity. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 1988, 35:960-966.
19. Geselowitz D. On bioelectric potentials in an inhomogenous volume conductor. Biophys. J. 1967, 7:1-11.
20. Sarvas J. Basic mathematical and electromagnetic concepts of the biomagnetic inverse problem. Phys. Med. Biol. 1987, 32:11-22.
21. de Munck J. A linear discretization of the volume conductor boundary integral equation using analytically integrated elements. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 1992, 39(9):986-990.
22. von Ellenrieder N., Muravchik C., Nehorai A. MEG forward problem formulation using equivalent surface current densities. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2005, 52(7):1210-1217.
23. W.T.C. for Neuroimaging Statistic parametrical mapping (SPM) toolbox, 2009. http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/.
24. Statistical Parametric Mapping: The Analysis of Functional Brain Images 2007, Academic Press. K.J. Friston, J. Ashburner, S.J. Kiebel, T.E. Nichols, W.D. Penny (Eds.).
25. Oostendorp T., Delbecke J., Stegeman D. The conductivity of the human skull: results of in vivo and in vitro measurements. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2000, 47(11):1467-1492.
26. Wendel K., Malmivuo J. Correlation between live and post mortem skull conductivity measurements. Proceedings of the 28th IEEE EMBS Annual International Conference 2006.
27. Zhang Y., van Drongelen W., He B. Estimation of in vivo brain-to-skull conductivity ratio in humans. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 89(4):223903-2239033.
28. G. Deuschl, A. Eisen, Recommendations for the practice of clinical neurophysiology: guidelines of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2nd edition, Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. (Suppl. 52), Elsevier Science B.V., 1999.
29. Meijs J., Weier O., Peters M., van Oosterom A. On the numerical accuracy of the boundary element method. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 1989, 36:1038-1049.
30. Hochwald B., Nehorai A. Magnetoencephalography with diversely oriented and multi component sensors. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 1997, 44:40-50.
31. von Ellenrieder N., Muravchik C. Comparación entre sensores de potencial y gradiente de potencial en mediciones de EEG. Actas del XVII Congreso Argentino de Control Automático (AADECA 2000) 2000, 389-394.
32. Haueisen J., Büttner A., Funke M., Brauer H., Nowak H. Influence of boundary element discretization on the forward and inverse problem in electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography. Biomed. Tech. 1997, 42:240-248.
33. Yetik I., Nehorai A., Muravchik C., Haueisen J. Line source modeling and estimation with magnetoencephalography. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro, vol. 2 2004, 1339-1342.
34. Yetik I., Nehorai A., Muravchik C., Haueisen J., Eiselt M. Surface-source modeling and estimation using biomagnetic measurements. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2006, 53(10):1872-1882.