The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Monte Carlo simulation studies of EEG and MEG localization accuracy
Open accessAbstract
Both electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) are currently used to localize brain activity. The accuracy of source localization depends on numerous factors, including the specific inverse approach and source model, fundamental differences in EEG and MEG data, and the accuracy of the volume conductor model of the head (i.e., the forward model). Using Monte Carlo simulations, this study removes the effect of forward model errors and theoretically compares the use of EEG alone, MEG alone, and combined EEG/MEG data sets for source localization. Here, we use a linear estimation inverse approach with a distributed source model and a realistic forward head model. We evaluated its accuracy using the crosstalk and point spread metrics. The crosstalk metric for a specified location on the cortex describes the amount of activity incorrectly localized onto that location from other locations. The point spread metric provides the complementary measure: for that same location, the point spread describes the mis‐localization of activity from that specified location to other locations in the brain. We also propose and examine the utility of a “noise sensitivity normalized” inverse operator. Given our particular forward and inverse models, our results show that 1) surprisingly, EEG localization is more accurate than MEG localization for the same number of sensors averaged over many source locations and orientations; 2) as expected, combining EEG with MEG produces the best accuracy for the same total number of sensors; 3) the noise sensitivity normalized inverse operator improves the spatial resolution relative to the standard linear estimation operator; and 4) use of an a priori fMRI constraint universally reduces both crosstalk and point spread. Hum. Brain Mapping 16:47–62, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cortical Surface-Based Analysis
Dale, A. M., Fischl, B., & Sereno, M. I. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0395 · Cited by 10,910
Self-citationSolutions of Ill-Posed Problems.
Bell, J. B., Tikhonov, A. N., & Arsenin, V. Y. (1978) · Mathematics of Computation · doi:10.2307/2006360 · Cited by 8,101
GELB, A. (1974) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 6,405
Cortical Surface-Based Analysis
Fischl, B., Sereno, M. I., & Dale, A. M. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0396 · Cited by 6,147
Self-citationPascual-Marqui, R. D., Michel, C. M., & Lehmann, D. (1994) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/0167-8760(84)90014-x · Cited by 2,869
Geophysical data analysis : discrete inverse theory
Menke, W. H. (1989) · Cited by 2,843
Dale, A. M., & Sereno, M. I. (1993) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.162 · Cited by 2,003
Self-citationDynamic Statistical Parametric Mapping
Dale, A. M., Liu, A. K., Fischl, B. R., Buckner, R. L., Belliveau, J. W., Lewine, J. D., & Halgren, E. (2000) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(00)81138-1 · Cited by 1,787
Self-citationUniqueness in the inversion of inaccurate gross Earth data
Backus, G., & Gilbert, F. (1970) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.1970.0005 · Cited by 1,336
Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory
(1989) · International Geophysics · doi:10.1016/s0074-6142(08)x6008-5 · Cited by 1,291
Cited by
Fischl, B. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.021 · Cited by 9,526
Review on solving the inverse problem in EEG source analysis
Grech, R., Cassar, T., Muscat, J., Camilleri, K. P., Fabri, S. G., Zervakis, M., Xanthopoulos, P., Sakkalis, V., & Vanrumste, B. (2008) · Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/1743-0003-5-25 · Cited by 1,193
Mismatch negativity (MMN), the deviance-elicited auditory deflection, explained
May, P. J. C., & Tiitinen, H. (2010) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00856.x · Cited by 549
Spatiotemporal dynamics of modality-specific and supramodal word processing
Marinkovic, K., Dhond, R. P., Dale, A. M., Glessner, M., Carr, V., & Halgren, E. (2003) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00197-1 · Cited by 520
Self-citationMeasuring MEG Closer to the Brain: Performance of on-Scalp Sensor Arrays
Iivanainen, J., Stenroos, M., & Parkkonen, L. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.048 · Cited by 296
“To evaluate the differences between the arrays in linear distributedsource estimation, we used metrics derived from the resolution matrix (Hauk et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2002; Molins et al., 2008; de Peralta Menendez et al., 1997; Stenroos and Hauk, 2013).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, A. K., Dale, A. M., & Belliveau, J. W.
- Venue
- Human Brain Mapping
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-02-06
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-62
- ISSN
- 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0193
- OpenAlex
- W1985582058
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 53
- FWCI
- 8.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Monte Carlo simulation studies of EEG and MEG localization accuracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hbm.10024
- The paper
- Liu, A. K., Dale, A. M., & Belliveau, J. W. (2002). Monte Carlo simulation studies of EEG and MEG localization accuracy. Human Brain Mapping. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.10024
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.