Cited by 414EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesEpilepsy research and treatmentDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques

Epileptic source localization with high density EEG: how many electrodes are needed?

Lantz, G, Grave de Peralta, R, Spinelli, L, Seeck, M, Michel, C.M·2003·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

Objective Electroencephalography (EEG) source reconstruction is becoming recognized as a useful technique to non-invasively localize the epileptic focus. Whereas, large array magnetoencephalography (MEG) systems are available since quite some time, application difficulties have previously prevented multichannel EEG recordings. Recently, however, EEG systems which allow for quick (10-20min) application of, and recording from, up to 125 electrodes have become available. The purpose of the current investigation was to systematically compare the accuracy of epileptic source localization with high electrode density to that obtained with sparser electrode setups.Methods Interictal epileptiform activity was recorded with 123 electrodes in 14 epileptic patients undergoing presurgical evaluation. Each single epileptiform potential was down sampled to 63 and 31 electrodes, and a distributed source model (EPIFOCUS) was used to reconstruct the sources with the 3 different electrode configurations. The localization accuracy with the 3 electrode setups was then assessed, by determining the distance from the inverse solution, maximum of each single spike to the epileptogenic lesion.Results In 9/14 patients, the distance from the EEG source to the lesion was significantly smaller with 63 than with 31 electrodes, and increasing the number of electrodes to 123 increased this number of patients from 9 to 11. Simulations confirmed the relation between the number of electrodes and localization accuracy.Conclusions The results illustrate the necessity of multichannel EEG recordings for high source location accuracy in epileptic patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00337-1

Cites

30 of 30 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lantz, G., Grave de Peralta, R., Spinelli, L., Seeck, M., & Michel, C. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Lantz, G
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-01
Volume
114
Issue
1
Pages
63-69
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2153208799
Cited by
413
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 17
FWCI
3.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Research Foundation
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
high-density EEG, electrode number, interictal epileptiform activity, preoperative assessment, distributed source model, inverse solution, epileptogenic lesions, positioning accuracy, multichannel EEG
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Child, Electrodes, Electroencephalography, Epilepsy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged

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