Cited by 2,003EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesDirection-of-Arrival Estimation TechniquesNumerical methods in inverse problems

Improved Localizadon of Cortical Activity by Combining EEG and MEG with MRI Cortical Surface Reconstruction: A Linear Approach

Dale, Anders M., Sereno, Martin I.·1993·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

We describe a comprehensive linear approach to the problem of imaging brain activity with high temporal as well as spatial resolution based on combining EEG and MEG data with anatomical constraints derived from MRI images. The "inverse problem" of estimating the distribution of dipole strengths over the cortical surface is highly underdetermined, even given closely spaced EEG and MEG recordings. We have obtained much better solutions to this problem by explicitly incorporating both local cortical orientation as well as spatial covariance of sources and sensors into our formulation. An explicit polygonal model of the cortical manifold is first constructed as follows: (1) slice data in three orthogonal planes of section (needle-shaped voxels) are combined with a linear deblurring technique to make a single high-resolution 3-D image (cubic voxels), (2) the image is recursively flood-filled to determine the topology of the gray-white matter border, and (3) the resulting continuous surface is refined by relaxing it against the original 3-D gray-scale image using a deformable template method, which is also used to computationally flatten the cortex for easier viewing. The explicit solution to an error minimization formulation of an optimal inverse linear operator (for a particular cortical manifold, sensor placement, noise and prior source covariance) gives rise to a compact expression that is practically computable for hundreds of sensors and thousands of sources. The inverse solution can then be weighted for a particular (averaged) event using the sensor covariance for that event. Model studies suggest that we may be able to localize multiple cortical sources with spatial resolution as good as PET with this technique, while retaining a much finer grained picture of activity over time.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.162

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.

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?

  • The cortical current density model is preferable because EEG/MEG sources are primarily currents through pyramidal cells aligned perpendicular to the cortical surface.

    “The latter is more preferable since the sources of EEG/MEG are primarily currents through pyramidal cells aligned perpendicular to the cortical surface, as proposed in the cortical current density (CCD) model (22).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dale, A. M., & Sereno, M. I.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
1993
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
162-176
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2031425398
Cited by
2,003
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 100 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 98 · 2016: 97 · 2015: 76 · 2014: 94 · 2013: 89 · 2012: 97
FWCI
7.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Direction-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Mathematical Physics › Numerical methods in inverse problems
Keywords
cortical surface reconstruction, source localization, linear inverse problems, dipole modeling, deformable templates

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