Journal of Signal Processing Systems

, Volume 65, Issue 3, pp 431–444 | Cite as

Simultaneous EEG Source and Forward Model Reconstruction (SOFOMORE) Using a Hierarchical Bayesian Approach

  • Carsten StahlhutEmail author
  • Morten Mørup
  • Ole Winther
  • Lars Kai Hansen


We present an approach to handle forward model uncertainty for EEG source reconstruction. A stochastic forward model representation is motivated by the many random contributions to the path from sources to measurements including the tissue conductivity distribution, the geometry of the cortical surface, and electrode positions. We first present a hierarchical Bayesian framework for EEG source localization that jointly performs source and forward model reconstruction (SOFOMORE). Secondly, we evaluate the SOFOMORE approach by comparison with source reconstruction methods that use fixed forward models. Analysis of simulated and real EEG data provide evidence that reconstruction of the forward model leads to improved source estimates.


EEG Inverse problem Source localization Distributed models Variational Bayes Forward model reconstruction 


  1. 1.
    Attias, H. (2000). A variational Bayesian framework for graphical models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 12(1–2), 209–215.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baillet, S., & Garnero, L. (1997). A Bayesian approach to introducing anatomo-functional priors in the EEG/MEG inverse problem. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 44(5), 374–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baillet, S., Mosher, J., & Leahy, R. (2001). Electromagnetic brain mapping. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 18, 14–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beal, M. (2003). Variational algorithms for approximate Bayesian inference. Ph.D. thesis, The Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London, UCL.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daunizeau, J., Grova, C., Marrelec, G., Mattout, J., Jbabdi, S., Pélégrini-Issac, M., et al. (2007). Symmetrical event-related EEG/FMRI information fusion in a variational bayesian framework. NeuroImage, 36, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friston, K., Harrison, L., Daunizeau, J., Kiebel, S., Phillips, C., Trujillo-Barreto, N., et al. (2008). Multiple sparse priors for the M/EEG inverse problem. NeuroImage, 39, 1104–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghahramani, Z., & Beal, M. J. (2000). Graphical models and variational methods. In Advanced mean field methods—Theory and practice. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Golub, G., Hansen, P., & O’Leary, D. (2000). Tikhonov regularization and total least squares. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 21(1), 185–194.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grova, C., Daunizeau, J., Lina, J.M., Bénar, C., Benali, H., & Gotman, J. (2006). Evaluation of EEG localization methods using realistic simulations of interictal spikes. NeuroImage, 29, 734–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hämäläinen, M., & Ilmoniemi, R. (1994). Interpreting magnetic fields of the brain: Minimum norm estimates. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 32, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henson, R., Goshen-Gottstein, Y., Ganel, T., Otten, L., Quayle, A., & Rugg, M. (2003). Electrophysiological and hemodynamic correlates of face perception, recognition and priming. Cerebral C ortex, 13, 793–805. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lew, S., Wolters, C., Anwander, A., Makeig, S., & MacLeod, R. (2007). Low resolution conductivity estimation to improve source localization. In New frontiers in biomagnetism. Proc. of the 15th int. conf. on biomag. Int. congress series (Vol. 1300, pp. 149–152).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mattout, J., Phillips, C., Penny, W., Rugg, M., & Friston, K. (2006). MEG source localization under multiple constraints: An extended Bayesian framework. NeuroImage, 30(3), 753–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mosher, J. C., Leahy, R. M., & Lewis, P. S. (1999). EEG and MEG: Forward solutions for inverse methods. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 46(3), 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mosher, J. C., Lewis, P. S., & Leahy, R. M. (1992). Multiple dipole modeling and localization from spatio-temporal MEG data. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 39(6), 541–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petersen, K., & Pedersen, M. (2007). The matrix cookbook. Version 20070905.
  18. 18.
    Phillips, C., Rugg, M., & Friston, K. (2002). Anatomically informed basis functions for EEG source localisation: Combining functional and anatomical constraints. NeuroI mage, 16(3), 678–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Plis, S., George, J., Jun, S., Ranken, D., Volegov, P., & Schmidt, D. (2007). Probabilistic forward model for electroencephalography source analysis. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 52(17), 5309–5328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sato, M. A., Yoshioka, T., Kajihara, S., Toyama, K., Goda, N., Doya, K., et al. (1999). Hierarchical bayesian estimation for MEG inverse problem. Neuroimage, 23(3), 806–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scherg, M., Bast, T., & Berg, P. (1999). Multiple source analysis of interictal spikes: Goals, requirements, and clinical value. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 16, 214–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stahlhut, C., Mørup, M., Winther, O., & Hansen, L. K. (2009). Hierarchical Bayesian model for simultaneous EEG source and forward model reconstruction (SOFOMORE). In Proceedings of the 2009 19th IEEE signal processing society workshop on machine learning for signal processing.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stahlhut, C., Mørup, M., Winther, O., & Hansen, L. K. (2009). SOFOMORE: Combined EEG source and forward model reconstruction. In 6th IEEE int. symp. on biomed. imaging (ISBI): From nano to macro (pp. 450–453).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Trujillo-Barreto, N., Aubert-Vazquez, E., & Penny, W. (2008). Bayesian M/EEG source reconstruction with spatio-temporal priors. NeuroImage, 39, 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    von Ellenrieder, N., Muravchik, C., & Nehorai, A. (2006). Effects of geometric head model perturbation on the EEG forward and inverse problems. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 53(3), 421–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolters, C., Anwander, A., Tricoche, X., Weinstein, D., Koch, M., & MacLeod, R. (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(3), 813–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ypma, T. (1995). Historical development of the Newton–Raphson method. SIAM Review, 37(4), 531–551.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carsten Stahlhut
    • 1
    Email author
  • Morten Mørup
    • 1
  • Ole Winther
    • 1
  • Lars Kai Hansen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Informatics and Mathematical ModellingTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations