CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

fMRI–EEG integrated cortical source imaging by use of time-variant spatial constraints

Open access
Liu, Zhongming, He, Bin·2008·NeuroImage
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.003PMC PMC2291020
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In response to the need of establishing a high-resolution spatiotemporal neuroimaging technique, tremendous efforts have been focused on developing multimodal strategies that combine the complementary advantages of high-spatial-resolution functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and high-temporal-resolution electroencephalography (EEG) or magnetoencephalography (MEG). A critical challenge to the fMRI-EEG/MEG integration lies in the spatial mismatches between fMRI activations and instantaneous electrical source activities. Such mismatches are fundamentally due to the fact that fMRI and EEG/MEG signals are generated and collected in highly different time scales. In this paper, we propose a new theoretical framework to solve the problem of fMRI-EEG integrated cortical source imaging. The new framework has two principal technical advancements. First, by assuming a linear neurovascular coupling, a method is derived to quantify the fMRI signal in each voxel as proportional to the time integral of the power of local electrical current during the period of event-related potentials (ERP). Second, the EEG inverse problem is solved for every time instant using an adaptive Wiener filter, in which the prior time-variant source covariance matrix is estimated by combining the quantified fMRI responses and the segmented EEG signals before response averaging. A series of computer simulations were conducted to evaluate the proposed methods in terms of imaging the instantaneous cortical current density (CCD) distribution and estimating the source time courses with a millisecond temporal resolution. As shown in the simulation results, the instantaneous CCD reconstruction by using the proposed fMRI-EEG integration method was robust against both fMRI false positives and false negatives while retaining a spatial resolution nearly as high as that of fMRI. The proposed method could also reliably estimate the source waveforms when multiple sources were temporally correlated or uncorrelated, or were sustained or transient, or had some features in frequency or phase, or had even more complicated temporal dynamics. Moreover, applying the proposed method to real fMRI and EEG data acquired in a visual experiment yielded a time series of reconstructed CCD images, in agreement with the traditional view of hierarchical visual processing. In conclusion, the proposed method provides a reliable technique for the fMRI-EEG integration and represents a significant advancement over the conventional fMRI-weighted EEG (or MEG) source imaging techniques and is also applicable to the fMRI-MEG integrated source imaging.

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.2007.10.003

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • fMRI-biased regularization algorithms share the assumption that EEG/MEG sources are more likely to occur where fMRI shows activation.

    “such algorithms all share and utilize a common assumption that EEG/MEG sources are more likely to occur at where fMRI views as activated.”

    From Electrophysiological source imaging: A noninvasive window to brain dynamics (2018) · cites this paper as [150]

  • This relationship provides a quantitative model linking fMRI to EEG/MEG and allows a more principled use of fMRI to constrain the EEG/MEG inverse solution for stimulus-evoked responses.

    “This relationship yields a quantitative model to relate fMRI to EEG/MEG, enabling a more principled way for using fMRI to constrain the EEG/MEG inverse solution for stimulus-evoked responses (150–152).”

    From Electrophysiological source imaging: A noninvasive window to brain dynamics (2018) · cites this paper as [150]

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

1 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. George J, Mosher JC, Schmidt D, Aine C, Wood C, Lewine J, Sander J, Belliveau JW. Functional neuroimaging by combined MRI, MEG and fMRI. Human Brain Mapp. 1995;S1:89. [Google Scholar]
  2. He B. Modeling and Imaging of Bioelectric Activity: Principles and Applications. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  3. Nunez PL, Srinivasan R. Electrical fields of the brain: the neurophysics of EEG. 2. Oxford University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  4. Trujillo-Barreto NJ, Martínez-Monte E, Melie-García L, Valdés-Sosa PA. A symmetrical Bayesian model for fMRI and EEG/MEG neuroimaging fusion. Int J Bioelectromagn. 2001;3(1) [Google Scholar]
  5. Wagner M, Fuchs M. Integration of functional MRI, structural MRI, EEG and MEG. Intl J Bioelectromagn. 2001;3(1) [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Liu, Z., & He, B.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
He, Bin
ORCID
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-02
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
1198-1214
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.003
PMC
PMC2291020
OpenAlex
W2160450584
Cited by
103
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Minnesota
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01-EB-00178, R01EB000178, R01EB007920)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
EEG inverse problem, adaptive Wiener filter, neurovascular coupling, event-related potentials, visual processing
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Cerebral Cortex, Computer Simulation, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Visual, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation

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