Cited by 130EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNumerical methods in inverse problemsDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques

Combining sparsity and rotational invariance in EEG/MEG source reconstruction

Haufe, Stefan, Nikulin, Vadim V., Ziehe, Andreas, Müller, Klaus-Robert, Nolte, Guido·2008·NeuroImage

Abstract

We introduce Focal Vector Field Reconstruction (FVR), a novel technique for the inverse imaging of vector fields. The method was designed to simultaneously achieve two goals: a) invariance with respect to the orientation of the coordinate system, and b) a preference for sparsity of the solutions and their spatial derivatives. This was achieved by defining the regulating penalty function, which renders the solutions unique, as a global l(1)-norm of local l(2)-norms. We show that the method can be successfully used for solving the EEG inverse problem. In the joint localization of 2-3 simulated dipoles, FVR always reliably recovers the true sources. The competing methods have limitations in distinguishing close sources because their estimates are either too smooth (LORETA, Minimum l(1)-norm) or too scattered (Minimum l(2)-norm). In both noiseless and noisy simulations, FVR has the smallest localization error according to the Earth Mover's Distance (EMD), which is introduced here as a meaningful measure to compare arbitrary source distributions. We also apply the method to the simultaneous localization of left and right somatosensory N20 generators from real EEG recordings. Compared to its peers FVR was the only method that delivered correct location of the source in the somatosensory area of each hemisphere in accordance with neurophysiological prior knowledge.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.246

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Sparsity is often assumed to avoid over-fitting in inverse problems and has increasing applications in signal and image processing.

    “Sparsity is often assumed to avoid over-fitting in inverse problems, and has increasing applications in signal and image processing (43, 50–54).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haufe, S., Nikulin, V. V., Ziehe, A., Müller, K.-R., & Nolte, G.
Affiliations
  • Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin (DE)
  • Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (DE)
Corresponding author
Haufe, Stefan
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-08
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
726-738
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007364043
Cited by
130
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Publikationsdatenbank der Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
  • Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Mathematical Physics › Numerical methods in inverse problems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Direction-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
Keywords
EEG source reconstruction, MEG source reconstruction, rotation invariance, sparse regularization, source localization, Wasserstein distance, dipole source localization, LORETA
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain, Brain Mapping, Computer Simulation, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Electroencephalography, Humans, Models, Neurological, Magnetoencephalography

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