Cited by 66EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesEpilepsy research and treatmentDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques

Automated localization of magnetoencephalographic interictal spikes by adaptive spatial filtering

Kirsch, H.E., Robinson, S.E., Mantle, M., Nagarajan, S.·2006·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

Objective Automated adaptive spatial filtering techniques can be applied to magnetoencephalographic (MEG) data collected from people with epilepsy. Source waveforms estimated by these methods have higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than spontaneous MEG data, allowing identification and location of interictal spikes. The software tool SAM(g(2)) provides an adaptive spatial filtering algorithm for MEG data that yields source images of excess kurtosis and provides source time-courses in voxels exhibiting high excess kurtosis. The sensitivity and specificity of SAM(g(2)) in epilepsy is unknown.Methods Interictal MEG data from 36 patients with intractable epilepsy were analyzed using SAM(g(2)), and results compared with equivalent current dipole (ECD) fit procedures.Results When SNR of interictal spikes was high (compared to background) with a clear single focus, in most cases there was good agreement between ECD and SAM(g(2)). With multiple foci, there was typically overlap but imperfect concordance between results of ECD and SAM(g(2)).Conclusions SAM(g(2)) may in some cases be equivalent to manual ECD fit for localizing interictal spikes with single locus and good SNR. Further studies are required to validate SAM(g(2)) with multiple foci or poor SNR.Significance In some cases, SAM(g(2)) might eventually assist or replace manual ECD analysis of MEG data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.06.708

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 10 · Cited by 66

Authors
Kirsch, H. E., Robinson, S. E., Mantle, M., & Nagarajan, S.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Kirsch, H.E.
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
117
Issue
10
Pages
2264-2271
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001222905
Cited by
66
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC 004855, R01DC004855)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K23 NS47100, K23NS047100)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Direction-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
Keywords
interictal spikes, spike localization, adaptive spatial filtering, magnetoencephalography, epilepsy, equivalent current dipole, excess kurtosis, source localization, signal-to-noise ratio, drug-resistant epilepsy
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Epilepsy, Humans, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Magnetocardiography

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