The effect of stimulation type, head modeling, and combined EEG and MEG on the source reconstruction of the somatosensory P20/N20 component

dc.contributor.authorAntonakakis, Marios
dc.contributor.authorSchrader, Sophie
dc.contributor.authorWollbrink, Andreas
dc.contributor.authorOostenveld, Robert
dc.contributor.authorRampp, Stefan
dc.contributor.authorHaueisen, Jens
dc.contributor.authorWolters, Carsten H.
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-06
dc.date.available2023-10-09T23:00:35Z
dc.date.created2019
dc.date.issued2020-10-06
dc.description.abstractAbstract Modeling and experimental parameters influence the Electro‐ (EEG) and Magnetoencephalography (MEG) source analysis of the somatosensory P20/N20 component. In a sensitivity group study, we compare P20/N20 source analysis due to different stimulation type (Electric‐Wrist [EW], Braille‐Tactile [BT], or Pneumato‐Tactile [PT]), measurement modality (combined EEG/MEG – EMEG, EEG, or MEG) and head model (standard or individually skull‐conductivity calibrated including brain anisotropic conductivity). Considerable differences between pairs of stimulation types occurred (EW‐BT: 8.7 ± 3.3 mm/27.1° ± 16.4°, BT‐PT: 9 ± 5 mm/29.9° ± 17.3°, and EW‐PT: 9.8 ± 7.4 mm/15.9° ± 16.5° and 75% strength reduction of BT or PT when compared to EW) regardless of the head model used. EMEG has nearly no localization differences to MEG, but large ones to EEG (16.1 ± 4.9 mm), while source orientation differences are non‐negligible to both EEG (14° ± 3.7°) and MEG (12.5° ± 10.9°). Our calibration results show a considerable inter‐subject variability (3.1–14 mS/m) for skull conductivity. The comparison due to different head model show localization differences smaller for EMEG (EW: 3.4 ± 2.4 mm, BT: 3.7 ± 3.4 mm, and PT: 5.9 ± 6.8 mm) than for EEG (EW: 8.6 ± 8.3 mm, BT: 11.8 ± 6.2 mm, and PT: 10.5 ± 5.3 mm), while source orientation differences for EMEG (EW: 15.4° ± 6.3°, BT: 25.7° ± 15.2° and PT: 14° ± 11.5°) and EEG (EW: 14.6° ± 9.5°, BT: 16.3° ± 11.1° and PT: 12.9° ± 8.9°) are in the same range. Our results show that stimulation type, modality and head modeling all have a non‐negligible influence on the source reconstruction of the P20/N20 component. The complementary information of both modalities in EMEG can be exploited on the basis of detailed and individualized head models.en
dc.format.extent17
dc.identifier.citationHuman Brain Mapping 40.17 (2019): 5011-5028. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hbm.24754>
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24754
dc.identifier.opus-id14667
dc.identifier.urihttps://open.fau.de/handle/openfau/14667
dc.identifier.urnurn:nbn:de:bvb:29-opus4-146670
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de
dc.subjectEEG
dc.subjectfinite element method
dc.subjectMEG
dc.subjectmultimodal imaging
dc.subjectsomatosensory cortex
dc.subjectsomatosensory evoked fields
dc.subjectsomatosensory evoked potentials
dc.subject.ddcDDC Classification::6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften :: 61 Medizin und Gesundheit :: 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.titleThe effect of stimulation type, head modeling, and combined EEG and MEG on the source reconstruction of the somatosensory P20/N20 componenten
dc.typearticle
dcterms.publisherFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU)
local.date.prevpublished2019-10-23
local.document.pageend5028
local.document.pagestart5011
local.journal.issue17
local.journal.titleHuman Brain Mapping
local.journal.volume40
local.publisherplaceHoboken, USA
local.sendToDnbfree*
local.subject.fakultaetMedizinische Fakultät
local.subject.gnd-
local.subject.importimport
local.subject.sammlungUniversität Erlangen-Nürnberg / Eingespielte Open Access Artikel / Eingespielte Open Access Artikel 2020
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
14667_HBM_HBM24754.pdf
Size:
5.11 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: