Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 35, Issue 10, pp 1699–1712 | Cite as

Modeling Skull Electrical Properties



Accurate representations and measurements of skull electrical conductivity are essential in developing appropriate forward models for applications such as inverse EEG or Electrical Impedance Tomography of the head. Because of its layered structure, it is often assumed that skull is anisotropic, with an anisotropy ratio around 10. However, no detailed investigation of skull anisotropy has been performed. In this paper we investigate four-electrode measurements of conductivities and their relation to tissue anisotropy ratio (ratio of tangential to radial conductivity) in layered or anisotropic biological samples similar to bone. It is shown here that typical values for the thicknesses and radial conductivities of individual skull layers produce tissue with much smaller anisotropy ratios than 10. Moreover, we show that there are very significant differences between the field patterns formed in a three-layered isotropic structure plausible for bone, and those formed assuming that bone is homogeneous and anisotropic. We performed a measurement of conductivity using an electrode configuration sensitive to the distinction between three-layered and homogeneous anisotropic composition and found results consistent with the sample being three-layered. We recommend that the skull be more appropriately represented as three isotropic layers than as homogeneous and anisotropic.


Skull conductivity Anisotropy Finite element model Head model 


  1. 1.
    Agilent Technologies Co. Ltd. The Impedance Measurement Handbook, Agilent Technologies, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akhtari M., Bryant H. C., Mamelak A. N., Heller L., Shih J. J., Mandelkern M., Matlachov A., Ranken D. M., Best E. D., Sutherling W. W. (2000) Conductivities of three-layer human skull. Brain Topogr. 13:29–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akhtari M., Bryant H. C., Mamelak A. N., Flynn E. R., Heller L., Shih J. J., Mandelkern M., Matlachov A., Ranken D. M., Dimauro M. A., Lee R. R., Sutherling W. W. (2002) Conductivities of three-layer live human skull. Brain Topogr. 14:151–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anwander, A., C. H. Wolters, M. Dumpelmann, and T. Knosche. Influence of realistic skull and white matter anisotropy on the inverse problem in EEG/MEG source localization. 13th International Conference on Biomagnetism, Jena Germany 2002 (BIOMAG 2002).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van den Broek S. P., Reinders F., Donderwinkel M., Peters M. J. (1998) Volume conduction effects in EEG and MEG. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 106:522–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen D., Cuffin B. N. (1983) Demonstration of useful differences between magnetoencephalogram and electroencephalogram. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 56:38–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuffin B. N. (1993) Effects of local variations in skull and scalp thickness on EEGs and MEGs. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 40:42–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Einziger P. D., Livshitz L. M., Mizrahi J. (2002) Rigorous image-series expansions of quasi-static Green’s functions for regions with planar stratification. IEEE Trans. Antenn. Propag. 50:1813–1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goncalves S., de Munck J. C., Heethaar R. M., Lopes Da Silva F. H., Van Dijk B. W. (2000) The application of electrical impedance tomography to reduce systematic errors in the EEG inverse problem—a simulation study. Physiol. Meas. 21:379–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goncalves S., De Munck J., Verbunt J. P. A., Bijma F., Heethaar R. M., Lopes Da Silva F. H. (2003a) In vivo measurement of the brain and skull resistivities using an EIT-based method and realistic models for the head. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 50:754–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goncalves S., de Munck J., Verbunt J. P. A., Heethaar R. M., Lopes Da Silva F. H. (2003b) In vivo measurement of the brain and skull resistivities using an EIT-based method and the combined analysis of SEF/SEP data. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 50:1124–1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hallez H., Vanrumste B., van Hese P., D’Asseler Y., Lemahieu I., van de Walle R. (2005) A finite difference method with reciprocity used to incorporate anisotropy in electroencephalogram dipole source localization. Phys. Med. Biol. 50:3787–3806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haueisen J., Ramon C., Eiselt M., Brauer H., Nowak H. (1997) Influence of tissue resistivities on neuromagnetic fields and electric potentials studied with a finite element model of the head. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 44:727–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoekema R., Wieneke G. H., Leijten F. S. S., van Veelen C. W. M., van Rijen P. C., Huiskamp G. J. M., Ansems J., van Huffelen A. C. (2003) Measurement of the conductivity of skull, temporarily removed during epilepsy surgery. Brain Topogr. 16:29–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holdefer R. N., Sadleir R. J., Russell M. J. (2006) Predicted current densities in the brain during transcranial electrical stimulation. Clin. Neurophysiol. 117:1388–1397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kun S., Peura R. (2000) Effects of sample geometry and electrode configuration on measured electrical resistivity of skeletal muscle. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 47:163–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Law S. K. (1993) Thickness and resistivity variations over the upper surface of the human skull. Brain Topogr. 6:99–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Livshitz L. M., Einziger P. D., Mizrahi J. (2000) Current distribution in skeletal muscle activated by functional electrical stimulation: image-series formulation and isometric recruitment curve. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 28:1218–1228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malmivuo J. A., Suihko V. E. (2004) Effect of skull resistivity of the spatial resolutions of EEG and MEG. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 51:1276–1280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marin G., Guerin C., Baillet S., Garnero L., Meunier G. (1998) Influence of skull anisotropy for the forward and inverse problem in EEG: simulation studies using FEM on realistic head models. Human Brain Mapp. 6:250–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ollikainen J. O., Vauhkonen M., Karjalainen P. A., Kaipio J. (1999) Effects of local skull inhomogeneities on EEG source estimation. Med. Eng. Phys. 21:143–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oostendorp, T. F., J. Delbeke, and D. F. Stegeman. The conductivity of the human skull: results of in vivo and in vitro measurements. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 47:1487–1492, 2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peters M. J., de Munck J. (1991) The influence of model parameters on the inverse solution based on MEGs and EEGs. Acta Otolaryngol. (Stock), Suppl. 491:61–69Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pohlmeier R., Buchner H., Knoll G., Rienacker A., Beckmann R., Pesch J. (1997) The influence of skull—conductivity misspecification on inverse source localization in realistically shaped finite element head models. Brain Topogr. 9:157–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramon C., Haueisen J., Schimpf P. H. (2006a) Influence of head models on neuromagnetic fields and inverse source localizations. BioMed. Eng. OnLine 55:55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramon C., Schimpf P. H., Haueisen J. (2006b) Influence of head models on EEG simulations and inverse source localizations. BioMed. Eng. OnLine 5:10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roth B. J., Ko D., Von Albertini-Carletti I. R., Scaffidi D., Sato S. (1997) Dipole localization in patients with epilepsy using the realistically shaped head model. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 102:159–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rush S. (1962) Methods of measuring the resistivities of anisotropic conducting media in situ. J. Res. Nat. Bureau Stand.-C. Eng. Instrument. 66C:217–222Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rush S., Driscoll D. A. (1968) Current Distribution in the brain from surface electrodes. Anesth. Analg. 47:717–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ryynänen O., Hyttinen J., Malmivuo J. (2005) Effect of skull resistivity and measurement noise on the spatial resolution of EEG. Int. J. Bioelectromag. 7:317–320Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wikswo J. P., Gevins A., Williamson S. J. (1993) The future of the EEG and MEG. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 87:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wolters, C. H., A. Anwander, M. A. Koch, S. Reitzinger, M. Kuhn, and M. Svensen. Influence of head tissue conductivity anisotropy on human EEG an MEG using fast high resolution finite element modeling, based on a parallel algebraic multigrid solver. In: Forschung und Wissenschaftliches Rechnen "Contributions to the Heinz-Billing Award" edited by T. Plesser and V. Macho. Gottingen, Gesellschaft fur Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung, 2001.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wolters C. H., Anwander A., Tricoche X., Weinstein D., Koch M. A., Macleod R. S. (2006) 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 30:813–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Gaumard ScientificMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations