The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Distributed current estimates using cortical orientation constraints
Open accessAbstract
Distributed source models of magnetoencephalographic (MEG) and electroencephalographic (EEG) data employ dense distributions of current sources in a volume or on a surface. Previously, anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data have been used to constrain locations and orientations based on cortical geometry extracted from anatomical MRI data. We extended this approach by first calculating cortical patch statistics (CPS), which for each patch corresponding to a current source location on the cortex comprise the area of the patch, the average normal direction, and the average deviation of the surface normal from its average. The patch areas were then incorporated in the forward model to yield estimates of the surface current density instead of dipole amplitudes at the current locations. The surface normal data were employed in a loose orientation constraint (LOC), which allows some variation of the current direction from the average normal. We employed this approach both in the ℓ 2 minimum‐norm estimates (MNE) and in the more focal ℓ 1 minimum‐norm solutions, the minimum‐current estimate (MCE). Simulations in auditory and somatosensory areas with current dipoles and 10‐ or 20‐mm diameter cortical patches as test sources showed that applying the LOC can increase localization accuracy. We also applied the method to in vivo auditory and somatosensory data. Hum Brain Mapp, 2005. © 2005 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
Realistic conductivity geometry model of the human head for interpretation of neuromagnetic data
Hamalainen, M. S., & Sarvas, J. (1989) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/10.16463 · Cited by 989
Genesis of MEG signals in a mammalian CNS structure
Okada, Y. C., Wu, J., & Kyuhou, S. (1997) · Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/s0013-4694(97)00043-6 · Cited by 172
Cited by
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
Measuring 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
“The regularization parameter has been suggested to be chosen as (Lin et al., 2006a,b) where Nc is the number of sensors, SNR is the estimated signal-to-noise ratio, tr(·) is trace of a matrix and L is the whitened lead-field matrix: .”
Rogasch, N. C., Thomson, R. H., Farzan, F., Fitzgibbon, B. M., Bailey, N. W., Hernandez-Pavon, J. C., Daskalakis, Z. J., & Fitzgerald, P. B. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.07.037 · Cited by 309
Time-frequency mixed-norm estimates: Sparse M/EEG imaging with non-stationary source activations
Gramfort, A., Strohmeier, D., Haueisen, J., Hämäläinen, M. S., & Kowalski, M. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.12.051 · Cited by 234
Self-citationQuantification of the benefit from integrating MEG and EEG data in minimum ℓ2-norm estimation
Molins, A., Stufflebeam, S. M., Brown, E. N., & Hämäläinen, M. S. (2008) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.05.064 · Cited by 192
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lin, F., Belliveau, J. W., Dale, A. M., & Hämäläinen, M. S.
- Venue
- Human Brain Mapping
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08-04
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-13
- ISSN
- 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0193
- OpenAlex
- W2120625852
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.