D R Wilton | PubMed Health

PubMed1998

Effect of conductivity uncertainties and modeling errors on EEG source localization using a 2-D model.

This paper presents a sensitivity study of electroencephalography-based source localization due to errors in the head-tissue conductivities and to errors in modeling the conductivity variation inside the brain and scalp. The study is conducted using a two-dimensional (2-D) finite element model obtained from a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of a head cross section. The effect of uncertainty in the following tissues is studied: white matter, gray matter, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), skull, and fat. The distribution of source location errors, assuming a single-dipole source model, is examined in detail for different dipole locations over the entire brain region. We also present a detailed analysis of the effect of conductivity on source localization for a four-layer cylinder model and a four-layer sphere model. These two simple models provide insight into how the effect of conductivity on boundary potential translates into source location errors, and also how errors in a 2-D model compare to errors in a three-dimensional model. Results presented in this paper clearly point to the following conclusion: unless the conductivities of the head tissues and the distribution of these tissues throughout the head are modeled accurately, the goal of achieving localization accuracy to within a few millimeters is unattainable.

Brain↗

PubMed1997

Computational aspects of finite element modeling in EEG source localization.

A comparison is made of two different implementations of the finite element method (FEM) for calculating the potential due to dipole sources in electroencephalography (EEG). In one formulation (the direct method) the total potential is the unknown that is solved for and the dipole source is directly incorporated into the model. In the second formulation (the subtraction method) the unknown is the difference between the total potential and the potential due to the same dipole in an infinite region of homogeneous conductivity, corresponding to the region where the dipole is located. Both methods have the same FEM system matrix. However, the subtraction method requires an additional calculation of flux integrations along the edges of the elements in the computation of the right-hand side (RHS) vector. It is shown that the subtraction method is usually more accurate in the forward modeling, provided the flux integrations are computed accurately. Errors in calculating the flux integrations may result in large errors in the forward solution due to the ill-conditioned nature of the FEM system matrix caused by the Neumann boundary condition. To minimize the errors, closed-form expressions for the flux integrations are used for both linear and quadratic triangular elements. It is also found that FEM forward modeling errors may cause false extrema in the least-square objective function obtained from the boundary potential, near boundaries between media of differing conductivity. Multiple initial guesses help eliminate the possibility of the solution getting trapped in these false extrema.

Brain↗