Electrophysiological source imaging (ESI) aims at reconstructing the precise origin of brain activity from measurements of the electric field on the scalp. Across laboratories/research centers/hospitals, ESI is performed with different methods, partly due to the ill-posedness of the underlying mathematical problem. However, it is difficult to find systematic comparisons involving a wide variety of methods. Further, existing comparisons rarely take into account the variability of the results with respect to the input parameters. Finally, comparisons are typically performed using either synthetic data, or in-vivo data where the ground-truth is only roughly known. We use an in-vivo high-density EEG dataset recorded during intracranial single pulse electrical stimulation, in which the true sources are substantially dipolar and their locations are precisely known. We compare ten different ESI methods, using their implementation in the MNE-Python package: MNE, dSPM, LORETA, sLORETA, eLORETA, LCMV beamformers, irMxNE, Gamma Map, SESAME and dipole fitting. We perform comparisons under multiple choices of input parameters, to assess the accuracy of the best reconstruction, as well as the impact of such parameters on the localization performance. Best reconstructions often fall within 1 cm from the true source, with most accurate methods hitting an average localization error of 1.2 cm and outperforming least accurate ones erring by 2.5 cm. As expected, dipolar and sparsity-promoting methods tend to outperform distributed methods. For several distributed methods, the best regularization parameter turned out to be the one in principle associated with low SNR, despite the high SNR of the available dataset. Depth weighting played no role for two out of the six methods implementing it. Sensitivity to input parameters varied widely between methods. While one would expect high variability being associated with low localization error at the best solution, this is not always the case, with some methods producing highly variable results and high localization error, and other methods producing stable results with low localization error. In particular, recent dipolar and sparsity-promoting methods provide significantly better results than older distributed methods. As we repeated the tests with “conventional” (32 channels) and dense (64, 128, 256 channels) EEG recordings, we observed little impact of the number of channels on localization accuracy; however, for distributed methods denser montages provide smaller spatial dispersion. Overall findings confirm that EEG is a reliable technique for localization of point sources and therefore reinforce the importance that ESI may have in the clinical context, especially when applied to identify the surgical target in potential candidates for epilepsy surgery.

An in–vivo validation of ESI methods with focal sources

Pascarella A.;Sciacchitano F.;Sartori I.;Cardinale F.;Avanzini P.;Nobili L.;Sorrentino A.
2023-01-01

Abstract

Electrophysiological source imaging (ESI) aims at reconstructing the precise origin of brain activity from measurements of the electric field on the scalp. Across laboratories/research centers/hospitals, ESI is performed with different methods, partly due to the ill-posedness of the underlying mathematical problem. However, it is difficult to find systematic comparisons involving a wide variety of methods. Further, existing comparisons rarely take into account the variability of the results with respect to the input parameters. Finally, comparisons are typically performed using either synthetic data, or in-vivo data where the ground-truth is only roughly known. We use an in-vivo high-density EEG dataset recorded during intracranial single pulse electrical stimulation, in which the true sources are substantially dipolar and their locations are precisely known. We compare ten different ESI methods, using their implementation in the MNE-Python package: MNE, dSPM, LORETA, sLORETA, eLORETA, LCMV beamformers, irMxNE, Gamma Map, SESAME and dipole fitting. We perform comparisons under multiple choices of input parameters, to assess the accuracy of the best reconstruction, as well as the impact of such parameters on the localization performance. Best reconstructions often fall within 1 cm from the true source, with most accurate methods hitting an average localization error of 1.2 cm and outperforming least accurate ones erring by 2.5 cm. As expected, dipolar and sparsity-promoting methods tend to outperform distributed methods. For several distributed methods, the best regularization parameter turned out to be the one in principle associated with low SNR, despite the high SNR of the available dataset. Depth weighting played no role for two out of the six methods implementing it. Sensitivity to input parameters varied widely between methods. While one would expect high variability being associated with low localization error at the best solution, this is not always the case, with some methods producing highly variable results and high localization error, and other methods producing stable results with low localization error. In particular, recent dipolar and sparsity-promoting methods provide significantly better results than older distributed methods. As we repeated the tests with “conventional” (32 channels) and dense (64, 128, 256 channels) EEG recordings, we observed little impact of the number of channels on localization accuracy; however, for distributed methods denser montages provide smaller spatial dispersion. Overall findings confirm that EEG is a reliable technique for localization of point sources and therefore reinforce the importance that ESI may have in the clinical context, especially when applied to identify the surgical target in potential candidates for epilepsy surgery.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11567/1132295
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact