4.7 Article

Detectability of cerebellar activity with magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography

Journal

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
Volume 41, Issue 9, Pages 2357-2372

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.24951

Keywords

cerebellum; EEG; forward modeling; MEG; Monte Carlo simulations; signal cancellation

Funding

  1. NIH [R01MH081990]
  2. Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award
  3. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [1R01NS104585]
  4. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering [5T32EB1680, 5U01EB023820, P41EB015896]
  5. Sweden-America foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Electrophysiological signals from the cerebellum have traditionally been viewed as inaccessible to magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG). Here, we challenge this position by investigating the ability of MEG and EEG to detect cerebellar activity using a model that employs a high-resolution tessellation of the cerebellar cortex. The tessellation was constructed from repetitive high-field (9.4T) structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of an ex vivo human cerebellum. A boundary-element forward model was then used to simulate the M/EEG signals resulting from neural activity in the cerebellar cortex. Despite significant signal cancelation due to the highly convoluted cerebellar cortex, we found that the cerebellar signal was on average only 30-60% weaker than the cortical signal. We also made detailed M/EEG sensitivity maps and found that MEG and EEG have highly complementary sensitivity distributions over the cerebellar cortex. Based on previous fMRI studies combined with our M/EEG sensitivity maps, we discuss experimental paradigms that are likely to offer high M/EEG sensitivity to cerebellar activity. Taken together, these results show that cerebellar activity should be clearly detectable by current M/EEG systems with an appropriate experimental setup.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available