The effect of stimulation type, head modeling, and combined EEG and MEG on the source reconstruction of the somatosensory P20/N20 component
The effect of stimulation type, head modeling, and combined EEG and MEG on the source reconstruction of the somatosensory P20/N20 component
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/hbm.24754
复制
发表时间：
2019-08-09
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Wolters, Carsten H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Antonakakis, Marios;Schrader, Sophie;Wolters, Carsten H.
模型和实验参数影响体感P20/N20分量的EEG和MEG源分析。在一项敏感性组研究中，我们比较了由于不同刺激类型（电腕[EW]、盲文触觉[BT]或脑电触觉[PT]）、测量模态（组合EEG/MEG-EMEG、EEG或MEG）和头部模型（标准或单独校准的颅骨电导率，包括大脑各向异性电导率）而导致的P20/N20源分析。刺激类型对之间存在相当大的差异（EW-BT：8.7 +/- 3.3 mm/27.1度+/- 16.4度，BT-PT：9 +/- 5 mm/29.9度+/- 17.3度，EW-PT：9.8 +/- 7.4 mm/15.9 ° +/- 16.5 °，与EW相比，BT或PT的强度降低75%），无论使用何种股骨头型号。EMEG与MEG几乎没有定位差异，但与EEG（16.1 +/-4.9 mm）有较大的定位差异，而EEG（14度+/-3.7度）和MEG（12.5度+/-10.9度）的源方向差异不可忽略。我们的校准结果显示了相当大的受试者之间的变异性（3.1-14 mS/m）的头骨电导率。由于不同的头部模型的比较，EMEG的定位差异较小（EW：3.4 ± 2.4 mm，BT：3.7 ± 3.4 mm，PT：5.9 ± 6.8 mm）（EW：8.6 +/- 8.3 mm，BT：11.8 +/- 6.2 mm，PT：10.5 +/- 5.3 mm），而EMEG的源方向差异（EW：15.4度± 6.3度，BT：25.7度± 15.2度和PT：14度± 11.5度）和EEG（EW：14.6度+/- 9.5度，BT：16.3度+/- 11.1度和PT：12.9度+/- 8.9度）在相同范围内。我们的研究结果表明，刺激类型，模态和头部建模都有不可忽视的影响P20/N20分量的源重建。EMEG中两种模式的互补信息可以在详细和个性化的头部模型的基础上加以利用。
Modeling and experimental parameters influence the Electro- (EEG) and Magnetoencephalography (MEG) source analysis of the somatosensory P20/N20 component. In a sensitivity group study, we compare P20/N20 source analysis due to different stimulation type (Electric-Wrist [EW], Braille-Tactile [BT], or Pneumato-Tactile [PT]), measurement modality (combined EEG/MEG - EMEG, EEG, or MEG) and head model (standard or individually skull-conductivity calibrated including brain anisotropic conductivity). Considerable differences between pairs of stimulation types occurred (EW-BT: 8.7 +/- 3.3 mm/27.1 degrees +/- 16.4 degrees, BT-PT: 9 +/- 5 mm/29.9 degrees +/- 17.3 degrees, and EW-PT: 9.8 +/- 7.4 mm/15.9 degrees +/- 16.5 degrees and 75% strength reduction of BT or PT when compared to EW) regardless of the head model used. EMEG has nearly no localization differences to MEG, but large ones to EEG (16.1 +/- 4.9 mm), while source orientation differences are non-negligible to both EEG (14 degrees +/- 3.7 degrees) and MEG (12.5 degrees +/- 10.9 degrees). Our calibration results show a considerable inter-subject variability (3.1-14 mS/m) for skull conductivity. The comparison due to different head model show localization differences smaller for EMEG (EW: 3.4 +/- 2.4 mm, BT: 3.7 +/- 3.4 mm, and PT: 5.9 +/- 6.8 mm) than for EEG (EW: 8.6 +/- 8.3 mm, BT: 11.8 +/- 6.2 mm, and PT: 10.5 +/- 5.3 mm), while source orientation differences for EMEG (EW: 15.4 degrees +/- 6.3 degrees, BT: 25.7 degrees +/- 15.2 degrees and PT: 14 degrees +/- 11.5 degrees) and EEG (EW: 14.6 degrees +/- 9.5 degrees, BT: 16.3 degrees +/- 11.1 degrees and PT: 12.9 degrees +/- 8.9 degrees) are in the same range. Our results show that stimulation type, modality and head modeling all have a non-negligible influence on the source reconstruction of the P20/N20 component. The complementary information of both modalities in EMEG can be exploited on the basis of detailed and individualized head models.