Cited by 233Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Dynamic causal modelling of evoked responses in EEG/MEG with lead field parameterization

Open access
Kiebel, Stefan J., David, Olivier, Friston, Karl J.·2006·NeuroImage

Abstract

Dynamical causal modeling (DCM) of evoked responses is a new approach to making inferences about connectivity changes in hierarchical networks measured with electro- and magnetoencephalography (EEG and MEG). In a previous paper, we illustrated this concept using a lead field that was specified with infinite prior precision. With this prior, the spatial expression of each source area, in the sensors, is fixed. In this paper, we show that using lead field parameters with finite precision enables the data to inform the network's spatial configuration and its expression at the sensors. This means that lead field and coupling parameters can be estimated simultaneously. Alternatively, one can also view DCM for evoked responses as a source reconstruction approach with temporal, physiologically informed constraints. We will illustrate this idea using, for each area, a 4-shell equivalent current dipole (ECD) model with three location and three orientation parameters. Using synthetic and real data, we show that this approach furnishes accurate and robust conditional estimates of coupling among sources and their orientations.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.055

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Dynamic causal modeling, leveraging EEG's temporal precision, enables exploration of these mechanisms.

    “Dynamic causal modeling (DCM), leveraging EEG’s temporal precision, enables exploration of these mechanisms21–23.”
  • DCMs have been implemented for a range of measurement techniques other than fMRI, including EEG, MEG, and LFPs, both in the time domain and frequency domain.

    “Dynamic causal models (DCMs)1 have also been implemented for a range of measurement techniques other than fMRI, including electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), and local field potentials (LFPs) obtained from invasive recordings in humans or animals, both in the time domain (Daunizeau et al., 2009b; David et al., 2006; Kiebel et al., 2006) and frequency domain (Chen et al., 2”

    From Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling (2010) · cites this paper as Kiebel et al., 2006

  • DCM can be considered a source reconstruction approach that exploits information about coupling among sources and can be used to determine the most likely number and deployment of sources.

    “In fact, DCM can be considered a source reconstruction approach that exploits information about coupling among sources and can be used to determine the most likely number and deployment of sources (Kiebel et al., 2006).”

    From Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling (2010) · cites this paper as Kiebel et al., 2006

  • The GLM for fMRI data and source reconstruction methods for EEG/MEG can be thought of as special cases of DCMs.

    “For example, the GLM for fMRI data and source reconstruction methods for EEG/MEG can be thought of as special cases of DCMs (for details, see Daunizeau et al., 2009b; Kiebel et al., 2006; Stephan et al., 2007a).”

    From Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling (2010) · cites this paper as Kiebel et al., 2006

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kiebel, S. J., David, O., & Friston, K. J.
Affiliations
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB)
Corresponding author
Kiebel, Stefan J.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-05
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
1273-1284
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006017444
Cited by
233
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 15
FWCI
7.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
dynamic causal modeling, evoked potentials, hierarchical neural networks, equivalent current dipole model, source orientation
MeSH terms
Auditory Perception, Bayes Theorem, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Dominance, Cerebral, Electroencephalography, Electromyography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Nerve Net, Neurons, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Neural Networks, Computer, Nonlinear Dynamics, Finite Element Analysis

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