Identification of fetal auditory evoked cortical responses using a denoising method based on periodic component analysis

Conference paper
Part of the IFMBE Proceedings book series (IFMBE, volume 22)


The analysis of auditory evoked cortical responses in the MEG of preterm neonates may result in early markers of functional cerebral development. A major constraint to this approach is the very low signal-to-noise ratio due to the fact that fMEG recordings are contaminated by other biological sources (mainly maternal and fetal cardiac activities). This paper presents a study of the fetal auditory response to external stimuli using a novel algorithm to remove the maternal and fetal cardiac activities based on Periodic Component Analysis, an improved extension of the conventional source separation techniques being customized for MCG signal decomposition and filtering. Acoustic stimuli were delivered to 10 normal healthy fetuses at different stages of gestation (between 29th and 34th completed gestational weeks). The MEG sensors were placed in a location over the women’s abdomen nearest to the fetal head, as determined by ultrasound images. In 7 out of the 10 cases clear responses of the fetal auditory evoked potentials could be detected by visual examination of the averaged time courses, characterized by a clear prominent component having latencies in the range 150–300 ms. A significance measure based on a bootstrap confidence interval has been employed in order to validate the identified responses. The accurate identification and removal of the MCG components enabled the detection of the evoked cortical responses in low signal-to-noise ratio conditions.


Auditory evoked cortical responses fMEG magnetoencephalography periodic component analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Welberg LA and Seckl JR. (2001) Prenatal stress, glucocorticoids and the programming of the brain, J. Neuroendocrinol. 13, pp. 113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schneider U, Schleussner E, Haueisen J, Nowak H, Seewald HJ. (2001) Signal Analysis of Auditory Evoked Cortical Fields in Fetal Magnetoencephalography. Brain Topography 14(1), pp. 69–80(12)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eswaran H, Draganova R, Preissl H. (2007) Auditory Evoked Responses: A tool to assess the fetal neurological activity. Applied Acoustics 68(3): 270–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schleussner E and Schneider U. (2004) Developmental changes of auditory-evoked fields in fetuses, Exp Neurol 190(Suppl. 1), pp. S59–S64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holst M, Eswaran H, Lowery C, Murphy P, Norton J, Preissl H. (2005) Development of auditory evoked fields in human fetuses and newborns: A longitudinal MEG study. Clin Neurophysiol. Aug;116 (8):1949–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pasman JW et al. (1991) Detectability of auditory evoked response components in preterm infants. Early Hum. Dev. 26, pp. 129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eswaran H et al. (2002) Short-term serial magnetoencephalography recordings of fetal auditory evoked responses. Neurosci. Lett. 331, pp. 128–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lengle JM, Chen M. and Wakai RT. (2001) Improved neuromagnetic detection of fetal and neonatal auditory evoked responses. Clin. Neurophysiol. 112, pp. 785–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Porcaro C et al. (2006) Fetal auditory responses to external sounds and mother’s heart beat: detection improved by Independent Component Analysis. Brain Res.;1101(1):51–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eswaran H, Lowery CL, Wilson JD, Murphy P, Preissl H. (2005) Fetal magnetoencephalography—a multimodal approach. Brain Res Dev Brain Res. Jan 1;154(1):57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sameni R, Jutten C, Shamsollahi MB. (2008) Multichannel electrocardiogram decomposition using periodic component analysis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. Aug;55(8):1935–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chiappa KH. (1990) Principles of evoked potentials. In: K.H. Chiappa, Editor, Evoked potential in clinical medicine, Raven Press, New York, pp. 1–35Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Belouchrani A, Abed-Meraim K, Cardoso JF and Moulines E. (1997) A Blind Source Separation Technique Using Second-Order Statistics, IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, vol. 45, pp. 434–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biomagnetic Center, Department of NeurologyFSUJenaGermany
  2. 2.Department of Images and Signals, INPGGIPSA-LabGrenoble CedexFrance
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics, University HospitalFriedrich Schiller University JenaGermany

Personalised recommendations