Advertisement

MEG as an Enabling Tool in Neuroscience: Transcending Boundaries with New Analysis Methods and Devices

  • M. S. HämäläinenEmail author
  • D. Lundqvist
Reference work entry

Abstract

Neuroscience studies have provided highly detailed information about the anatomical and structural composition and organization of the brain, but insights into its functional principles are still lacking. To advance this understanding, scientists need to match their new research questions with instruments that provide information about the brain’s functionality at a sufficient level of detail with a potential to resolve the very rapidly evolving patterns of brain activity while also providing the necessary spatial detail and accuracy. Until 50 years ago, electroencephalography (EEG) was the only noninvasive technique capable of directly measuring neuronal activity with a millisecond time resolution. However, with the birth of magnetoencephalography (MEG), functional brain activity can now be resolved with this time resolution at a new level of spatial detail.

The use of MEG in practical studies began with the first real-time measurements in the beginning of the 1970s. During the following decade, multichannel MEG systems were developed in parallel with both investigations of normal brain activity and clinical studies, especially in epileptic patients. The first whole-head MEG system with more than 100 channels was introduced in 1992. By the end of the century, hundreds of such instruments had been delivered to researchers and clinicians worldwide. With vibrant interaction between neuroscientists, clinicians, physicists, mathematicians, and engineers, the experimental approaches and analysis methods were developed to establish MEG as an important method to study healthy and diseased brains. With the advent of low-noise room-temperature magnetic field sensors and novel analysis approaches, we are now at the verge of a revolution that will critically improve both the sensitivity and the spatial resolution of MEG and will especially advance its use in studies of early brain development and neurodegenerative disorders, as well as investigations of brain function in naturalistic situations and during interpersonal interactions. This chapter focuses on instrumentation and analysis tool developments, which have enabled and continue to enable MEG to flourish as a noninvasive tool to study brain function. The final section of this chapter offers lessons learned from seasoned investigators on conducting successful MEG studies, necessarily emphasizing additional issues such as the formulation of the research question and creation of experimental protocols.

Keywords

MEG EEG Source estimation MEG instruments Experimental design 

References

  1. Adrian D (1944) Brain rhythms. Nature 153:360–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agam Y et al.(2011) Multimodal neuroimaging dissociates hemodynamic and electrophysiological correlates of error processing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:17556–17561. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1103475108CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahlfors S, Ilmoniemi R, Hämäläinen M (1992) Estimates of visually evoked cortical currents. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 82:225–236PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahlfors SP, Han J, Lin FH, Witzel T, Belliveau JW, Hamalainen MS, Halgren E (2010) Cancellation of EEG and MEG signals generated by extended and distributed sources. Hum Brain Mapp 31:140–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20851CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahveninen J et al.(2006) Task-modulated "what" and "where" pathways in human auditory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:14608–14613PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aine C et al.(1996) Retinotopic organization of human visual cortex: Departures from the classical model. Cereb Cortex 6:354–361PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Alexander GE, DeLong MR, Strick PL (1986) Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 9:357–381. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.09.030186.002041CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersen LM et al.(2017) Similarities and differences between on-scalp and conventional in-helmet magnetoencephalography recordings. PLoS One 12:e0178602. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178602CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Babadi B, Obregon-Henao G, Lamus C, Hamalainen MS, Brown EN, Purdon PL (2014) A Subspace Pursuit-based Iterative Greedy Hierarchical solution to the neuromagnetic inverse problem. NeuroImage 87:427–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Baillet S (2017) Magnetoencephalography for brain electrophysiology and imaging. Nat Neurosci 20:327–339. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4504CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Baillet S, Mosher JC, Leahy RM (2001) Electromagnetic Brain Mapping. IEEE Signal Process Mag 18:14–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barry JF et al.(2016) Optical magnetic detection of single-neuron action potentials using quantum defects in diamond. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:14133–14138. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601513113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Berger H (1929) Ueber das Elektrenkephalogramm des Menschen Archiv fuer Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, vol 87, pp 527–570Google Scholar
  14. Borna A et al.(2017) A 20-channel magnetoencephalography system based on optically pumped magnetometers. Phys Med Biol 62:8909–8923. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa93d1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Boto E et al.(2017) A new generation of magnetoencephalography: Room temperature measurements using optically-pumped magnetometers. NeuroImage 149:404–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.034CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Boto E et al.(2018) Moving magnetoencephalography towards real-world applications with a wearable system. Nature 555:657–661. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature26147CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Brenner D, Williamson SJ, Kaufman L (1975) Visually evoked magnetic fields of the human brain. Science 190:480–481PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Canolty RT et al.(2006) High gamma power is phase-locked to theta oscillations in human neocortex. Science 313:1626–1628. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128115CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Cichy RM, Pantazis D, Oliva A (2014) Resolving human object recognition in space and time. Nat Neurosci 17:455–462. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3635CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Cichy RM, Pantazis D, Oliva A (2016) Similarity-Based Fusion of MEG and fMRI Reveals Spatio-Temporal Dynamics in Human Cortex During Visual Object Recognition. Cereb Cortex 26:3563–3579. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw135CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen D (1968) Magnetoencephalography: evidence of magnetic fields produced by alpha-rhythm currents. Science 161:784–786PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Cohen D (1972) Magnetoencephalography: detection of the brain's electrical activity with a superconducting magnetometer. Science 175:664–666PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Cuffin BN, Cohen D (1977) Magnetic fields of a dipole in special volume conductor shapes. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 24:372–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dalal SS et al.(2009) Simultaneous MEG and intracranial EEG recordings during attentive reading. NeuroImage 45:1289–1304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.01.017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Dale AM, Sereno MI (1993) Improved localization of cortical activity by combining EEG and MEG with MRI cortical surface reconstruction: A linear approach. J Cogn Neurosci 5:162–176PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Dale AM, Liu AK, Fischl BR, Buckner RL, Belliveau JW, Lewine JD, Halgren E (2000) Dynamic statistical parametric mapping: combining fMRI and MEG for high-resolution imaging of cortical activity. Neuron 26:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dannhauer M, Lanfer B, Wolters CH, Knosche TR (2011) Modeling of the human skull in EEG source analysis. Hum Brain Mapp 32:1383–1399. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Daunizeau J et al.(2007a) Assessing the relevance of fMRI-based prior in the EEG inverse problem: a bayesian model comparison approach. IEEE Trans Signal Process 53:3461–3472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Daunizeau J et al.(2007b) Symmetrical event-related EEG/fMRI information fusion in a variational Bayesian framework. NeuroImage 36:69–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.01.044CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Drechsler F, Wolters CH, Dierkes T, Si H, Grasedyck L (2009) A full subtraction approach for finite element method based source analysis using constrained Delaunay tetrahedralisation. NeuroImage 46:1055–1065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.02.024CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Faley MI, Poppe U, Borkowski RE, Schiek M, Boers F (2012) Magnetoencephalography using a Multilayer hightc DC SQUID Magnetometer. Phys Procedia 36:66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goldenholz DM, Ahlfors SP, Hamalainen MS, Sharon D, Ishitobi M, Vaina LM, Stufflebeam SM (2009) Mapping the signal-to-noise-ratios of cortical sources in magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography. Hum Brain Mapp 30:1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20571CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Gramfort A, Kowalski M, Hamalainen M (2012) Mixed-norm estimates for the M/EEG inverse problem using accelerated gradient methods. Phys Med Biol 57:1937–1961. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/7/1937CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Gramfort A, Strohmeier D, Haueisen J, Hamalainen MS, Kowalski M (2013) Time-frequency mixed-norm estimates: sparse M/EEG imaging with non-stationary source activations. NeuroImage 70:410–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.12.051CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Graybiel AM (2000) The basal ganglia. Curr Biol CB 10:R509–R511PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Grinvald A, Hildesheim R (2004) VSDI: a new era in functional imaging of cortical dynamics. Nat Rev Neurosci 5:874–885. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1536CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Gullmar D, Haueisen J, Reichenbach JR (2010) Influence of anisotropic electrical conductivity in white matter tissue on the EEG/MEG forward and inverse solution. A high-resolution whole head simulation study. NeuroImage 51:145–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Hämäläinen M, Hari R (2002) Magnetoencephalographic characterization of dynamic brain activation: basic principles and methods of data collection and source analysis. In: Toga AW, Mazziotta JC (eds) Brain Mapping, The Methods. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 227–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hämäläinen M, Ilmoniemi R (1984) Interpreting magnetic fields of the brain: minimum norm estimates. Helsinki University of Technology, EspooGoogle Scholar
  40. Hämäläinen MS, Sarvas J (1987) Feasibility of the homogeneous head model in the interpretation of neuromagnetic fields. Phys Med Biol 32:91–97PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Hämäläinen MS, Sarvas J (1989) Realistic conductivity geometry model of the human head for interpretation of neuromagnetic data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng BME 36:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hämäläinen M, Hari R, Ilmoniemi R, Knuutila J, Lounasmaa OV (1993) Magnetoencephalography – theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Rev Mod Phys 65:413–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hari R, Ilmoniemi RJ (1986) Cerebral magnetic fields. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 14:93–126PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Hari R, Kaukoranta E (1985) Neuromagnetic studies of the somatosensory system. Progr Neurobiol 24:233–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hari R, Salmelin R (2012) Magnetoencephalography: from SQUIDs to neuroscience. Neuroimage 20th anniversary special edition. NeuroImage 61:386–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.074CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Heilbronner SR, Platt ML (2013) Causal evidence of performance monitoring by neurons in posterior cingulate cortex during learning. Neuron 80:1384–1391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.028CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Holmes N et al.(2018) A bi-planar coil system for nulling background magnetic fields in scalp mounted magnetoencephalography. NeuroImage 181:760–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.07.028CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Horwitz B, Poeppel D (2002) How can EEG/MEG and fMRI/PET data be combined? Hum Brain Mapp 17:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.10057CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Iivanainen J, Stenroos M, Parkkonen L (2017) Measuring MEG closer to the brain: Performance of on-scalp sensor arrays. NeuroImage 147:542–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.048CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Ilmoniemi RJ, Hämäläinen MS, Knuutila J (1985) The forward and inverse problems in the spherical model. In: Weinberg H, Stroink G, Katila T (eds) Biomagnetism: Applications & Theory. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 278–282Google Scholar
  51. Jas M, Larson E, Engemann DA, Leppakangas J, Taulu S, Hamalainen M, Gramfort A (2018) A Reproducible MEG/EEG Group Study With the MNE Software: Recommendations, Quality Assessments, and Good Practices. Front Neurosci 12:530. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00530CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Jones EG (1998) Viewpoint: the core and matrix of thalamic organization. Neuroscience 85:331–345PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Jones EG (2001) The thalamic matrix and thalamocortical synchrony. Trends Neurosci 24:595–601PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Jones SR, Pritchett DL, Stufflebeam SM, Hamalainen M, Moore CI (2007) Neural correlates of tactile detection: a combined magnetoencephalography and biophysically based computational modeling study. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 27:10751–10764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jones SR, Pritchett DL, Sikora MA, Stufflebeam SM, Hamalainen M, Moore CI (2009) Quantitative analysis and biophysically realistic neural modeling of the MEG mu rhythm: rhythmogenesis and modulation of sensory-evoked responses. J Neurophysiol 102:3554–3572. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00535.2009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Kakisaka Y et al.(2012) Use of simultaneous depth and MEG recording may provide complementary information regarding the epileptogenic region. Epileptic Disord 14:298–303. https://doi.org/10.1684/epd.2012.0517CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Kemppainen P, Ilmoniemi RJ (1989) Channel capacity of multichannel magnetometers. In: Williamson SJ, Hoke M, Stroink G, Kotani M (eds) Advances in Biomagnetism. Plenum Press, New York, pp 635–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kerr CE et al.(2011) Effects of mindfulness meditation training on anticipatory alpha modulation in primary somatosensory cortex. Brain Res Bull 85:96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2011.03.026CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Khan S et al.(2013) Local and long-range functional connectivity is reduced in concert in autism spectrum disorders. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:3107–3112. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214533110CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Kim K, Begus S, Xia H, Lee SK, Jazbinsek V, Trontelj Z, Romalis MV (2014) Multi-channel atomic magnetometer for magnetoencephalography: a configuration study. NeuroImage 89:143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.040CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Knuutila J et al.(1991) Design of a 122-channel neuromagnetometer covering the whole head. In: Hoke M (ed) Abstract book of the 8th international conference on biomagnetism. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, pp 109–110Google Scholar
  62. Kominis IK, Kornack TW, Allred JC, Romalis MV (2003) A subfemtotesla multichannel atomic magnetometer. Nature 422:596–599. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01484CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Kriegeskorte N, Kievit RA (2013) Representational geometry: integrating cognition, computation, and the brain. Trends Cogn Sci 17:401–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Kriegeskorte N, Mur M, Bandettini P (2008) Representational similarity analysis - connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Front Syst Neurosci 2:4. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.06.004.2008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Krishnaswamy P et al.(2017) Sparsity enables estimation of both subcortical and cortical activity from MEG and EEG. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114:E10465–E10474PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lanfer B, Wolters CH, Demokritov SO, Pantev C (2007) Validating finite element method based EEG and MEG forward computations. Paper presented at the 41 Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Biomedizinische Technik AachenGoogle Scholar
  67. Lew S, Wolters CH, Dierkes T, Röer C, MacLeod RS (2009) Accuracy and run-time comparison for different potential approaches and iterative solvers in finite element method based EEG source analysis. Appl Numer Math 59:1970–1988PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lew S, Sliva DD, Choe MS, Grant PE, Okada Y, Wolters CH, Hamalainen MS (2013) Effects of sutures and fontanels on MEG and EEG source analysis in a realistic infant head model. NeuroImage 76C:282–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Liu AK, Belliveau JW, Dale AM (1998) Spatiotemporal imaging of human brain activity using functional MRI constrained magnetoencephalography data: Monte Carlo simulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:8945–8950PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lopes da Silva F, Van Rotterdam A (1992) Biophysical aspects of EEG and MEG generation. In: Niedermeyer E, Lopes da Silva F (eds) Electroencephalography: basic principles, clinical applications and related fields. W&W, Baltimore/MunichGoogle Scholar
  71. Mosher JC, Leahy RM (1998) Recursive MUSIC: a framework for EEG and MEG source localization. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 45:1342–1354PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Mosher JC, Lewis PS, Leahy RM (1992) Multiple dipole modeling and localization from spatio-temporal MEG data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 39:541–557. https://doi.org/10.1109/10.141192CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Mosher JC, Leahy RM, Lewis PS (1999) EEG and MEG: forward solutions for inverse methods. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 46:245–259PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Murakami S, Okada Y (2015) Invariance in current dipole moment density across brain structures and species: physiological constraint for neuroimaging. NeuroImage 111:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.003CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Murakami H et al.(2016) Correlating magnetoencephalography to stereo-electroencephalography in patients undergoing epilepsy surgery. Brain J Neurol. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww215PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nishitani N, Avikainen S, Hari R (2004) Abnormal imitation-related cortical activation sequences in Asperger's syndrome. Ann Neurol 55:558–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20031CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Okada Y, Lahteenmaki A, Xu C (1999) Comparison of MEG and EEG on the basis of somatic evoked responses elicited by stimulation of the snout in the juvenile swine Clinical neurophysiology: official journal of the International Federation of Clinical. Neurophysiology 110:214–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Okada Y et al.(2016) BabyMEG: A whole-head pediatric magnetoencephalography system for human brain development research. Rev Sci Instrum 87:094301. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4962020CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Ou W, Hamalainen MS, Golland P (2009) A distributed spatio-temporal EEG/MEG inverse solver. NeuroImage 44:932–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.05.063CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Ou W, Nummenmaa A, Ahveninen J, Belliveau JW, Hamalainen MS, Golland P (2010) Multimodal functional imaging using fMRI-informed regional EEG/MEG source estimation. NeuroImage 52:97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. Phelps EA, LeDoux JE (2005) Contributions of the amygdala to emotion processing: from animal models to human behavior. Neuron 48:175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.09.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Plonsey R (1969) Bioelectric phenomena. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. Roche-Labarbe N, Aarabi A, Kongolo G, Gondry-Jouet C, Dumpelmann M, Grebe R, Wallois F (2008) High-resolution electroencephalography and source localization in neonates. Hum Brain Mapp 29:167–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20376CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. Sacchet MD et al.(2015) Attention drives synchronization of alpha and beta rhythms between right inferior frontal and primary sensory neocortex. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 35:2074–2082. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1292-14.2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Salmelin R, Hari R (1994) Spatiotemporal characteristics of sensorimotor neuromagnetic rhythms related to thumb movement. Neuroscience 60:537–550PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. Salmelin R, Hari R, Lounasmaa OV, Sams M (1994) Dynamics of brain activation during picture naming. Nature 368:463–465PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sams M, Hari R (1991) Magnetoencephalography in the study of human auditory information processing. Ann N Y Acad Sci 620:102–117PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Sander TH, Preusser J, Mhaskar R, Kitching J, Trahms L, Knappe S (2012) Magnetoencephalography with a chip-scale atomic magnetometer. Biomed Opt Express 3:981–990. https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.3.000981CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. Sarvas J (1987) Basic mathematical and electromagnetic concepts of the biomagnetic inverse problem. Phys Med Biol 32:11–22PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. Sekihara K, Nagarajan SS (2008) Adaptive spatial filters for electromagnetic brain imaging. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  91. Sharon D, Hamalainen MS, Tootell RB, Halgren E, Belliveau JW (2007) The advantage of combining MEG and EEG: Comparison to fMRI in focally stimulated visual cortex. NeuroImage 36:1225–1235PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sherman MA et al.(2016) Neural mechanisms of transient neocortical beta rhythms: Converging evidence from humans, computational modeling, monkeys, and mice Proceedings of the. Natl Acad Sci USA 113:E4885–E4894. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604135113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Steinstrater O, Sillekens S, Junghoefer M, Burger M, Wolters CH (2010) Sensitivity of beamformer source analysis to deficiencies in forward modeling. Hum Brain Mapp 31:1907–1927. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20986CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. Stenroos M (2016) Integral equations and boundary-element solution for static potential in a general piece-wise homogeneous volume conductor. Phys Med Biol 61:N606–N617. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/22/N606CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  95. Stenroos M, Hauk O (2013) Minimum-norm cortical source estimation in layered head models is robust against skull conductivity error. NeuroImage 81:265–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.086CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. Stenroos M, Nummenmaa A (2016) Incorporating and Compensating Cerebrospinal Fluid in Surface-Based Forward Models of Magneto- and Electroencephalography. PLoS One 11:e0159595. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159595CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. Stenroos M, Hunold A, Haueisen J (2014) Comparison of three-shell and simplified volume conductor models in magnetoencephalography. NeuroImage 94:337–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.006CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  98. Steriade M, McCormick DA, Sejnowski TJ (1993) Thalamocortical oscillations in the sleeping and aroused brain. Science 262:679–685PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. Tanaka N et al.(2010) Propagation of epileptic spikes reconstructed from spatiotemporal magnetoencephalographic and electroencephalographic source analysis. NeuroImage 50:217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.033CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. Taylor JM et al.(2008) High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution. Nat Phys 4:810–816. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tripp JH (1983) Physical concepts and mathematical models. In: Williamson SJ, Romani GL, Kaufman L, Modena I (eds) Biomagnetism: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Plenum, New York, pp 101–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Tuch DS, Wedeen VJ, Dale AM, George JS, Belliveau JW (2001) Conductivity tensor mapping of the human brain using diffusion tensor. MRI Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11697–11701PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  103. Tuomisto T, Hari R, Katila T, Poutanen T, Varpula T (1983) Studies of auditory evoked magnetic and electric responses: modality specificity and modelling. Il Nuovo Cimento 2D:471–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Uutela K, Hämäläinen M, Somersalo E (1999) Visualization of magnetoencephalographic data using minimum current estimates. NeuroImage 10:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Van Veen B, Buckley K (1988) Beamforming: A versatile approach to spatial filtering IEEE assp magazineGoogle Scholar
  106. Vesanen PT et al.(2013) Hybrid ultra-low-field MRI and magnetoencephalography system based on a commercial whole-head neuromagnetometer. Magn Reson Med 69:1795–1804. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.24413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wan Q, Kerr C, Pritchett D, Hamalainen M, Moore C, Jones S (2011) Dynamics of dynamics within a single data acquisition session: variation in neocortical alpha oscillations in human MEG. PLoS One 6:e24941. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024941CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. Wang C, Sun L, Lichtenwalter B, Zerkle B, Okada Y (2016) Compact, ultra-low vibration, closed-cycle helium recycler for uninterrupted operation of MEG with SQUID magnetometers. Cryogenics 76:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Williamson SJ, Kaufman L (1981) Biomagnetism. J Magn Magn Mat 22:129–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wolters CH, Anwander A, Berti G, Hartmann U (2007a) Geometry-adapted hexahedral meshes improve accuracy of finite-element-method-based EEG source analysis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 54:1446–1453. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2007.890736CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  111. Wolters CH, Köstler H, Möller C, Härdtlein J, Anwander A (2007b) Numerical approaches for dipole modeling in finite element method based source analysis. Int Congr Ser 1300:189–192. ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wolters CH, Köstler H, Möller C, Härtlein J, Grasedyck L, Hackbusch W (2007c) Numerical mathematics of the subtraction method for the modeling of a current dipole in EEG source reconstruction using finite element head models. SIAM J Sci Comput 30:24–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Xie M et al.(2017) Benchmarking for On-Scalp MEG Sensors. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 64:1270–1276. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2016.2599177CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical ImagingMassachusetts General HospitalCharlestownUSA
  2. 2.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.NatMEG, Department of Clinical NeuroscienceKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Section editors and affiliations

  • Seppo P. Ahlfors
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, MGH/HST Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical ImagingMassachusetts General HospitalCharlestown, MAUSA
  2. 2.Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations