Brain Topography

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 24–34 | Cite as

Conventional and Reciprocal Approaches to the Inverse Dipole Localization Problem for N20–P20 Somatosensory Evoked Potentials

  • Stefan Finke
  • Ramesh M. Gulrajani
  • Jean Gotman
  • Pierre Savard
Original Paper

Abstract

The non-invasive localization of the primary sensory hand area can be achieved by solving the inverse problem of electroencephalography (EEG) for N20–P20 somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). This study compares two different mathematical approaches for the computation of transfer matrices used to solve the EEG inverse problem. Forward transfer matrices relating dipole sources to scalp potentials are determined via conventional and reciprocal approaches using individual, realistically shaped head models. The reciprocal approach entails calculating the electric field at the dipole position when scalp electrodes are reciprocally energized with unit current—scalp potentials are obtained from the scalar product of this electric field and the dipole moment. Median nerve stimulation is performed on three healthy subjects and single-dipole inverse solutions for the N20–P20 SEPs are then obtained by simplex minimization and validated against the primary sensory hand area identified on magnetic resonance images. Solutions are presented for different time points, filtering strategies, boundary-element method discretizations, and skull conductivity values. Both approaches produce similarly small position errors for the N20–P20 SEP. Position error for single-dipole inverse solutions is inherently robust to inaccuracies in forward transfer matrices but dependent on the overlapping activity of other neural sources. Significantly smaller time and storage requirements are the principal advantages of the reciprocal approach. Reduced computational requirements and similar dipole position accuracy support the use of reciprocal approaches over conventional approaches for N20–P20 SEP source localization.

Keywords

Somatosensory evoked potential Boundary-element method Reciprocity Inverse problem Source localization Equivalent current dipole 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Stefan Finke was supported by an M.D./Ph.D. Scholarship in part from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and in part from le Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec. In memoriam to Ramesh M. Gulrajani.

References

  1. Allison T, McCarthy G, Wood CC, Darcey TM, Spencer DD, Williamson PD (1989) Human cortical potentials evoked by electrical stimulation of the median nerve. J Neurophysiol 62:694–710PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bittar RG, Olivier A, Sadikot AF, Andermann F, Comeau RM, Cyr M, Peters TM, Reutens DC (1999) Localization of somatosensory function by using positron emission tomography scanning: a comparison with intraoperative cortical stimulation. J Neurosurg 90:478–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broca P (1888) Description elémentaires des circonvolutions cérébrales de l’homme. Mémoires d’anthropologie. Reinwald, Paris, pp 707–804Google Scholar
  4. Buchner H, Fuchs M, Wischmann HA, Dössel O, Ludwig I, Knepper A, Berg P (1994) Source analysis of median nerve and finger stimulated somatosensory evoked potentials: multichannel simultaneous recording of electric and magnetic fields combined with 3D-MR tomography. Brain Topogr 6:299–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchner H, Adams L, Müller A, Ludwig I, Knepper A, Thron A, Niemann K, Scherg M (1995a) Somatotopy of human hand somatosensory cortex revealed by dipole source analysis of early somatosensory evoked potentials and 3D-NMR tomography. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 96:121–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchner H, Waberski TD, Fuchs M, Wischmann H-A, Wagner M, Drenckhahn R (1995b) Comparison of realistically shaped boundary-element and spherical head models in source localization of early somatosensory evoked potentials. Brain Topogr 8:137–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cuffin BN, Cohen D, Yunokuchi K, Maniewski R, Purcell C, Cosgrove GR, Ives J, Kennedy J, Schomer D (1991) Tests of EEG localization accuracy using implanted sources in the human brain. Ann Neurol 29:132–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fender DH (1991) Models for the human brain and the surrounding media: their influence on the reliability of source localization. J Clin Neurophysiol 8:381–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finke S, Gulrajani RM (2001) Conventional and reciprocal approaches to the forward problem of electroencephalography. Electromagnetics 21:513–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finke S, Gulrajani RM, Gotman J (2003) Conventional and reciprocal approaches to the inverse dipole localization problem of electroencephalography. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 50:657–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fletcher DJ, Amir A, Jewett DL, Fein G (1995) Improved method for computation of potentials in a realistic head shape model. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 42:1094–1104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forsythe GE, Moler CB (1967) Computer solution of linear algebraic systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  13. Gabriel S, Lau R, Gabriel C (1996) The dielectric properties of biological tissues: I. Measurements in the frequency range 10 Hz to 20 GHz. Phys Med Biol 41:2251–2269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geddes L, Baker L (1967) The specific resistance of biological material—a compendium of data for the biomedical engineer and physiologist. Med Biol Eng 5:271–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gevins A, Bricked P, Costales B, Le J, Reuter B (1990) Beyond topographic mapping: towards functional-anatomical imaging with 124-channel EEGs and 3-D MRIs. Brain Topogr 3:53–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gross DW, Merlet I, Boling W, Gotman J (2000) Relationships between the epileptic focus and hand area in central epilepsy: combining dipole models and anatomical landmarks. J Neurosurg 92:785–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. He B, Musha T, Okamoto Y, Homma S, Nakajima Y, Sato T (1987) Electric dipole tracing in the brain by means of the boundary element method and its accuracy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 34:406–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kristeva-Feige R, Walter H, Lütkenhöner B, Hampson S, Ross B, Knorr U, Steinmetz H, Cheyne D (1994) A neuromagnetic study of the functional organization of the sensorimotor cortex. Eur J Neurosci 6:632–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kurth R, Villringer K, Mackert BM, Schwiemann J, Braun J, Curio G, Villringer A, Wolf KJ (1998) fMRI assessment of somatotopy in human Brodmann area 3b by electrical finger stimulation. Neuroreport 9:207–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Law SK (1993) Thickness and resistivity variations over the upper surface of the human skull. Brain Topogr 6:99–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehmann D (1987) Principles of spatial analysis. In: Gevins AS, Remond A (eds) Methods of analysis of brain electrical and magnetic signals. EEG handbook. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 309–354Google Scholar
  22. Lüders H, Dinner DS, Lesser RP, Morris HH (1986) Evoked potentials in cortical localization. J Clin Neurophysiol 3:75–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marquardt DW (1963) An algorithm for least-squares estimation of non-linear parameters. J Soc Ind Appl Math 11:431–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mauguière F (2005) Somatosensory evoked potentials: normal responses, abnormal waveforms, and clinical applications in neurological diseases. In: Niedermeyer E, Lopes da Silva FH (eds) Electroencephalography: basic principles, clinical applications, and related fields. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1067–1120Google Scholar
  25. Mosher JC, Lewis PS, Leahy RM (1992) Multiple dipole modeling and localization from spatio-temporal MEG data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 39:541–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nunez PL (1981) Electric fields of the brain: the neurophysics of EEG. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Nunez PL (1990) Localization of brain activity with electroencephalography. In: Sato S (ed) Magnetoencephalography. Raven Press, New York, pp 39–65Google Scholar
  28. Oostendorp TF, Delbeke J, Stegeman DF (2000) The conductivity of the human skull: results of in vivo and in vitro measurements. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 47:1487–1492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Penfield W, Boldrey E (1937) Somatic motor and sensory representation in the cerebral cortex of man as studied by electrical stimulation. Brain 60:389–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richards JE (2004) Recovering dipole sources from scalp-recorded event-related-potentials using component analysis: principal component analysis and independent component analysis. Int J Psychophysiol 54:201–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rush S, Driscoll DA (1968) Current distribution in the brain from surface electrodes. Anesth Analg 47:717–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scherg M, Bast T, Berg P (1999) Multiple source analysis of interictal spikes: goals, requirements, and clinical value. J Clin Neurophysiol 16:214–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vanrumste B, Van Hoey R, Van de Walle R, D’Havé MRP, Lemahieu IA, Boon PAJM (2001) The validation of the finite difference method and reciprocity for solving the inverse problem in EEG dipole source analysis. Brain Topogr 14:83–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weinstein D, Zhukov L, Johnson C (2000) Lield-field bases for electroencephalography source imaging. Ann Biomed Eng 28:1059–1065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yousry TA, Schmid UD, Alkadhi H, Schmidt D, Peraud A, Buettner A, Winkler P (1997) Localization of the motor hand area to a knob on the precentral gyrus: a new landmark. Brain 120:141–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang Z, Jewett DL, Goodwill G (1994) Insidious errors in dipole parameter due to shell model misspecification using multiple time-points. Brain Topogr 6:283–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Finke
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ramesh M. Gulrajani
    • 1
  • Jean Gotman
    • 2
  • Pierre Savard
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Biomedical EngineeringUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Montreal Neurological InstituteMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Institute of Biomedical EngineeringÉcole PolytechniqueMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations