Advertisement

Biomag 96 pp 358-360 | Cite as

Optimization of Conductivity and Permeability Parameters for Brain, CSF, Skull and Scalp Using Implanted Sources in the Human Cranium

  • S. A. Taylor
  • R. Rogers
  • D. Mcnay
  • M. Levesque
  • M. Akhtari
  • W. Sutherling
Conference paper

Abstract

By invoking the dipole in a sphere model, researchers elude the volume current effects in MagnetoEncephaloGraphic (MEG) localizations [1]. The drive for better accuracy, however, has led to the Boundary Element Model (BEM) [2] which more closely represents head and brain anatomy. The drawback, of course, is that volume currents are not suppressed in a BEM as they are in the dipole in a sphere model. Proper account of the volume current in the BEM requires the macroscopic conductivities associated with the four major head tissue layers: brain, CerebroSpinal Fluid (CSF), skull, and scalp. Unfortunately, prior studies to determine these parameters [3–5] have never been confirmed in the context of MEG localization studies.

Keywords

Permeability Parameter Dipole Location Boundary Element Model Signal Template Macroscopic Conductivity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Williamson, S., Kaufmann, L., Analysis of neuromagnetic signals. In: Gevins, A.S., Remond, A. Methods of Analysis of Brain Electrical and Magnetic Signals, London, Elsevier, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Hamalainen, M.S., Sarvas, J., Realistic conductivity geometry model of the human head for interpretation of neuromagnetic data. IEEE Transaction on Biomedical Engineering, 1989, 36: 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Rayport, M., Sandler, B., Six-electrode method for the measurement of the passive electrical properties of brain envelopes. Medical and Biological Engineering, 1969, 7: 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Rush, S. and Driscoll, D., EEG electrode sensitivity: an application of reciprocity, IEEE Trans, 1969, BME-16: 15–22.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Geddes, L.A. and Baker, L.E., The specific resistance of biological materials–a compendium of data for the biomedical engineer and physiologist, Medical and Biological Engineering, 1967, 5: 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Cohen, D., Cuffin, B.N., Yunokuchi, K, Maniewski, R., Purcell, C., Cosgrove, R., Ives, J., Kennedy, J.G., Schomer, D.L., MEG versus EEG localization test using implanted sources in the human brain, Annal of Neurology, 1990, 28: 811–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Mosher, J.C., Lewis, P.S., Leahy, R., Singh, M., Multiple dipole modeling of spatio-temporal MEG data, Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering, 1990, Vol. 1351: 364–375.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. A. Taylor
    • 1
  • R. Rogers
    • 1
  • D. Mcnay
    • 1
  • M. Levesque
    • 1
  • M. Akhtari
    • 1
  • W. Sutherling
    • 1
  1. 1.Neuromagnetism Laboratory, Epilepsy & Brain Mapping CenterGood Samaritan HospitalLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations