Publication:
Incorporating and Compensating Cerebrospinal Fluid in Surface-Based Forward Models of Magneto- and Electroencephalography

Thumbnail Image

Open/View Files

Date

2016

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Public Library of Science
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Stenroos, Matti, and Aapo Nummenmaa. 2016. “Incorporating and Compensating Cerebrospinal Fluid in Surface-Based Forward Models of Magneto- and Electroencephalography.” PLoS ONE 11 (7): e0159595. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159595. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159595.

Research Data

Abstract

MEG/EEG source imaging is usually done using a three-shell (3-S) or a simpler head model. Such models omit cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) that strongly affects the volume currents. We present a four-compartment (4-C) boundary-element (BEM) model that incorporates the CSF and is computationally efficient and straightforward to build using freely available software. We propose a way for compensating the omission of CSF by decreasing the skull conductivity of the 3-S model, and study the robustness of the 4-C and 3-S models to errors in skull conductivity. We generated dense boundary meshes using MRI datasets and automated SimNIBS pipeline. Then, we built a dense 4-C reference model using Galerkin BEM, and 4-C and 3-S test models using coarser meshes and both Galerkin and collocation BEMs. We compared field topographies of cortical sources, applying various skull conductivities and fitting conductivities that minimized the relative error in 4-C and 3-S models. When the CSF was left out from the EEG model, our compensated, unbiased approach improved the accuracy of the 3-S model considerably compared to the conventional approach, where CSF is neglected without any compensation (mean relative error < 20% vs. > 40%). The error due to the omission of CSF was of the same order in MEG and compensated EEG. EEG has, however, large overall error due to uncertain skull conductivity. Our results show that a realistic 4-C MEG/EEG model can be implemented using standard tools and basic BEM, without excessive workload or computational burden. If the CSF is omitted, compensated skull conductivity should be used in EEG.

Description

Keywords

Biology and Life Sciences, Anatomy, Musculoskeletal System, Skeleton, Skull, Medicine and Health Sciences, Bioassays and Physiological Analysis, Electrophysiological Techniques, Brain Electrophysiology, Electroencephalography, Physiology, Electrophysiology, Neurophysiology, Neuroscience, Brain Mapping, Diagnostic Medicine, Clinical Neurophysiology, Imaging Techniques, Neuroimaging, Magnetoencephalography, Body Fluids, Cerebrospinal Fluid, Nervous System, Diagnostic Radiology, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Radiology and Imaging, Head, Physical Sciences, Physics, Electricity, Electric Conductivity, Scalp

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

Related Stories