Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T06:34:46.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Data acquisition and pre-processing standards for electrical neuroimaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2009

By
Christoph M. Michel  and
Daniel Brandeis
Edited by
Christoph M. Michel ,
Thomas Koenig ,
Daniel Brandeis ,
Lorena R. R. Gianotti  and
Jiří Wackermann
Christoph M. Michel
Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Thomas Koenig
Affiliation:
University Hospital of Psychiatry, Berne, Switzerland
Daniel Brandeis
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Zurich, Switzerland and Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Grmany
Lorena R. R. Gianotti
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Jiří Wackermann
Affiliation:
Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and Mental Health, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The raw data for electrical neuroimaging is the potential field recorded on the scalp using multichannel EEG systems. Unlike waveform analysis of EEG or evoked potential (EP), electrical neuroimaging is based on the spatial analysis of these potential maps. The quality of these maps determines the goodness of the subsequent analysis steps. It is therefore of crucial importance that these scalp potential fields are recorded and pre-processed in a correct manner. An important issue concerns the number and the distribution of the electrodes on the scalp to provide an adequate spatial sampling of the potential field. Another issue is the measurement of the exact position of each electrode and the spatial normalization of the potential fields when averaging over subjects. Artifact detection and elimination is also an important point, since noise crucially influences source analysis. On the other hand, some factors that pose important problems for the traditional waveform analysis are irrelevant for electric neuroimaging. Obviously the selection of the “correct montage” for EEG analysis, or the “correct electrode” for evoked potential analysis is not relevant when analyzing the potential field. However, most important is that the question of the correct reference is completely obsolete for electrical neuroimaging. This fact was unfortunately often ignored and the “reference-problem” has been considered as a major disadvantage of the EEG compared with the MEG.

Type
Chapter
Information
Electrical Neuroimaging , pp. 79 - 92
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Desmedt, JE, Tomberg, C, Noel, P, Ozaki, I.Beware of the average reference in brain mapping. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology Suppl. 1990; 41:22–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Tomberg, C, Noel, P, Ozaki, I, Desmedt, JE. Inadequacy of the average reference for the topographic mapping of focal enhancements of brain potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1990;77:259–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junghofer, M, Elbert, T, Tucker, DM, Braun, C.The polar average reference effect: a bias in estimating the head surface integral in EEG recording. Clinical Neurophysiology 1999;110:1149–1155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gencer, NG, Williamson, SJ, Gueziec, A, Hummel, R.Optimal reference electrode selection for electric source imaging. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1996;99:163–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williamson, SJ, Lu, ZL, Karron, D, Kaufman, L.Advantages and limitations of magnetic source imaging. Brain Topography 1991;4: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wikswo, JPJ, Gevins, A, Williamson, SJ. The future of EEG and MEG. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1993;87:1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pataraia, E, Baumgartner, C, Lindinger, G, Deecke, L.Magnetoencephalography in presurgical epilepsy evaluation. Neurosurgery Review 2002;25:141–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barkley, GL. Controversies in neurophysiology. MEG is superior to EEG in localization of interictal epileptiform activity: Pro. Clinical Neurophysiology 2004;115:1001–1009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pascual-Marqui, RD, Lehmann, D.Topographic maps, source localization inference, and the reference electrode: comments on a paper by Desmedt et al. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1993;88:532–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geselowitz, DB. The zero of potential. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 1998;17:128–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, DSW. Reference-free identification of components of checkerboard-evoked multichannel potential fields. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1980;48:609–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michel, CM, Murray, MM, Lantz, Get al. EEG source imaging. Clinical Neurophysiology 2004;115:2195–2222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, MM, Brunet, D, Michel, CM. Topographic ERP analyses: a step-by-step tutorial review. Brain Topography 2008;20:249–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Picton, TW, Bentin, S, Berg, Pet al. Guidelines for using human event-related potentials to study cognition: recording standards and publication criteria. Psychophysiology 2000;37:127–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luck, SJ. An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005.Google Scholar
Nuwer, M.Assessment of digital EEG, quantitative EEG, and EEG brain mapping: report of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. Neurology 1997;49:277–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michel, CM, Lantz, G, Spinelli, Let al. 128-channel EEG source imaging in epilepsy: clinical yield and localization precision. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 2004;21:71–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, MD. Dense array EEG: methodology and new hypothesis on epilepsy syndromes. Epilepsia 2008;49:3–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, T-H, North, G.Aliasing effects and sampling theorems of SRFs when sampled on a finite grid. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 1996;49:341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, PG, Emerson, RG, Isler, JR, Stark, RI. Quantitative analysis of spatial sampling error in the infant and adult electroencephalogram. Neuroimage 2004;21:1260–1274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Srinivasan, R, Nunez, PL, Tucker, DM, Silberstein, RB, Cadusch, PJ. Spatial sampling and filtering of EEG with spline laplacians to estimate cortical potentials. Brain Topography 1996;8:355–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Srinivasan, R, Tucker, DM, Murias, M.Estimating the spatial Nyquist of the human EEG. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 1998;30:8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryynänen, OR, Hyttinen, JA, Laarne, PH, Malmivuo, JA. Effect of electrode density and measurement noise on the spatial resolution of cortical potential distribution. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 2004;51:1547–1554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryynänen, OR, Hyttinen, JA, Malmivuo, JA. Effect of measurement noise and electrode density on the spatial resolution of cortical potential distribution with different resistivity values for the skull. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 2006;53:1851–1858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, AR, Cohen, LG, Fabrikant, J, Hallett, M.A method for determining optimal interelectrode spacing for cerebral topographic mapping. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1989;72:355–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gevins, A, Brickett, P, Costales, B, Le, J, Reutter, B.Beyond topographic mapping: towards functional-anatomical imaging with 124-channel EEGs and 3-D MRIs. Brain Topography 1990;3:53–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, WJ, Holmes, MD, Burke, BC, Vanhatalo, S.Spatial spectra of scalp EEG and EMG from awake humans. Clinical Neurophysiology 2003;114:1053–1068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luu, P, Tucker, DM, Englander, Ret al. Localizing acute stroke-related EEG changes: assessing the effects of spatial undersampling. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 2001;18:302–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lantz, G, Grave de Peralta, R, Spinelli, L, Seeck, M, Michel, CM. Epileptic source localization with high density EEG: how many electrodes are needed? Clinical Neurophysiology 2003;114:63–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grave de Peralta, R, Gonzalez, S, Lantz, G, Michel, CM, Landis, T.Noninvasive localization of electromagnetic epileptic activity. I. Method descriptions and simulations. Brain Topography 2001;14: 131–137.Google Scholar
Spinelli, L, Andino, SG, Lantz, G, Seeck, M, Michel, CM. Electromagnetic inverse solutions in anatomically constrained spherical head models. Brain Topography 2000;13:115–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ary, JP, Klein, SA, Fender, DH. Location of sources of evoked scalp potentials: corrections for skull and scalp thicknesses. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 1981;128:447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rush, S, Driscoll, DA. EEG electrode sensitivity – an application of reciprocity. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 1969;16:15–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malmivuo, JA, Suihko, VE. Effect of skull resistivity on the spatial resolutions of EEG and MEG. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 2004;51:1276–1280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oostendorp, TF, Delbeke, J, Stegeman, DF. The conductivity of the human skull: results of in vivo and in vitro measurements. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 2000;47:1487–1492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoekema, R, Wieneke, GH, Leijten, FSet al. Measurement of the conductivity of skull, temporarily removed during epilepsy surgery. Brain Topography 2003;16:29–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lai, Y, Drongelen, W, Ding, Let al. Estimation of in vivo human brain-to-skull conductivity ratio from simultaneous extra- and intra-cranial electrical potential recordings. Clinical Neurophysiology 2005;116:456–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fifer, WP, Grieve, PG, Grose-Fifer, J, Isler, JR, Byrd, D.High-density electroencephalogram monitoring in the neonate. Clinical Perinatology 2006;33: 679–691, vii.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferree, TC, Eriksen, KJ, Tucker, DM. Regional head tissue conductivity estimation for improved EEG analysis. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 2000;47:1584–1592.Google ScholarPubMed
Sperli, F, Spinelli, L, Seeck, Met al. EEG source imaging in paediatric epilepsy surgery: a new perspective in presurgical workup. Epilepsia 2006;47:981–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, G, Clercq, J, Vanrumste, Bet al. EEG dipole source localization using artificial neural networks. Physics in Medicine and Biology 2000;45:997–1011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khosla, D, Don, M, Kwong, B.Spatial mislocalization of EEG electrodes – effects on accuracy of dipole estimation. Clinical Neurophysiology 1999;110:261–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y, Gotman, J.The influence of electrode location errors on EEG dipole source localization with a realistic head model. Clinical Neurophysiology 2001;112: 1777–1780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, DM. Spatial sampling of head electrical fields: the geodesic sensor net. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1993;87:154–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munck, JC, Vijn, PC, Spekreijse, H.A practical method for determining electrode positions on the head. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1991;78:85–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le, J, Lu, M, Pellouchoud, E, Gevins, A.A rapid method for determining standard 10/10 electrode positions for high resolution EEG studies. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1998;106:554–558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koessler, L, Maillard, L, Benhadid, Aet al. Spatial localization of EEG electrodes. Clinical Neurophysiology 2007;37:97–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steddin, S, Botzel, K.A new device for scalp electrode localization with unrestrained head. Journal of Neurology 1995;242:65.Google Scholar
Russell, GS, Jeffrey Eriksen, K, Poolman, P, Luu, P, Tucker, DM. Geodesic photogrammetry for localizing sensor positions in dense-array EEG. Clinical Neurophysiology 2005;116:1130–1140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brinkmann, BH, O'Brien, TJ, Dresner, MAet al. Scalp-recorded EEG localization in MRI volume data. Brain Topography 1998;10:245–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lagerlund, TD, Sharbrough, FW, JackCR, Jr CR, Jr. et al. Determination of 10–20 system electrode locations using magnetic resonance image scanning with markers. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1993;86:7–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoo, SS, Guttmann, CR, Ives, JRet al. 3D localization of surface 10–20 EEG electrodes on high resolution anatomical MR images. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1997;102:335–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodin, E, Rodin, M, Boyer, R, Thompson, J.Displaying electroencephalographic dipole sources on magnetic resonance images. Journal of Neuroimaging 1997;7:106–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scherg, M, Ille, N, Bornfleth, H, Berg, P.Advanced tools for digital EEG review: virtual source montages, whole-head mapping, correlation, and phase analysis. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 2002;19:91–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, EM, Kussmaul, CL, Mangun, GR. Estimation of interpolation errors in scalp topographic mapping. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1996;98:422–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junghofer, M, Elbert, T, Tucker, DM, Rockstroh, B.Statistical control of artifacts in dense array EEG/MEG studies. Psychophysiology 2000;37:523–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lins, OG, Picton, TW, Berg, P, Scherg, M.Ocular artifacts in EEG and event-related potentials. I: Scalp topography. Brain Topography 1993;6:51–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, P, Scherg, M.Dipole models of eye movements and blinks. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1991;79:36–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyvarinen, A, Oja, E.Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications. Neural Networks 2000;13: 411–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jung, TP, Makeig, S, Humphries, Cet al. Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation. Psychophysiology 2000;37:163–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jung, TP, Makeig, S, Westerfield, Met al. Removal of eye activity artifacts from visual event-related potentials in normal and clinical subjects. Clinical Neurophysiology 2000;111:1745–1758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delorme, A, Sejnowski, T, Makeig, S.Enhanced detection of artifacts in EEG data using higher-order statistics and independent component analysis. Neuroimage 2007;34:1443–1449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mantini, D, Perrucci, MG, Cugini, Set al. Complete artifact removal for EEG recorded during continuous fMRI using independent component analysis. Neuroimage 2007;34:598–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grouiller, F, Vercueil, L, Krainik, Aet al. A comparative study of different artefact removal algorithms for EEG signals acquired during functional MRI. Neuroimage 2007;38:124–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×