Cited by 192EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNumerical methods in inverse problemsDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques

Quantification 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

Abstract

Source current estimation from electromagnetic (MEG and EEG) signals is an ill-posed problem that often produces blurry or inaccurately positioned estimates. The two modalities have distinct factors limiting the resolution, e.g., MEG cannot detect radially oriented sources, while EEG is sensitive to accuracy of the head model. This makes combined EEG+MEG estimation techniques desirable, but different acquisition noise statistics, complexity of the head models, and lack of pertinent metrics all complicate the assessment of the resulting improvements. We investigated analytically the effect of including EEG recordings in MEG studies versus the addition of new MEG channels when computing noise-normalized minimum l(2)-norm estimates. Three-compartment boundary-element forward models were constructed using structural MRI scans for four subjects. Singular value analysis of the resulting forward models predicted better performance of the EEG+MEG case in the form of higher matrix rank. MNE inverse operators for EEG, MEG and EEG+MEG were constructed using the sensor noise covariance estimated from data. Metrics derived from the resolution matrices predicted higher spatial resolution in EEG+MEG as compared to MEG due to decreased spread (lower spatial dispersion, higher resolution index) with no reduction in dipole localization error. The effect was apparent in all source locations, with increased magnitude for deep areas such as the cingulate cortex. We were also able to corroborate the results for the somatosensory cortex using median nerve responses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.05.064

Cites

29 of 29 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Molins, A., Stufflebeam, S. M., Brown, E. N., & Hämäläinen, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Molins, A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
42
Issue
3
Pages
1069-1077
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007891950
Cited by
192
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 16
FWCI
3.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (DP1OD003646)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K08MH067966)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA015644)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01 EB06385, R01EB006385)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P41-RR-14075, P41RR014075)
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
inverse problems, forward model, singular value analysis, resolution matrix, spatial resolution, dipole source localization, cingulate cortex, somatosensory cortex, boundary element model
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Electroencephalography, Epilepsy, Humans, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, 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