4.6 Article

Predicting EEG responses using MEG sources in superior temporal gyrus reveals source asynchrony in patients with schizophrenia

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 114, Issue 5, Pages 835-850

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1388-2457(03)00041-5

Keywords

schizophrenia; auditory; P50; M50; superior temporal gyrus

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01-MH65304] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: An integrated analysis using Electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) is introduced to study abnormalities in early cortical responses to auditory stimuli in schizophrenia. Methods: Auditory responses were recorded simultaneously using EEG and MEG from 20 patients with schizophrenia and 19 control subjects. Bilateral superior temporal gyrus (STG) sources and their time courses were obtained using MEG for the 30-100 ms post-stimulus interval. The MEG STG source time courses were used to predict the EEG signal at electrode Cz. Results: In control subjects, the STG sources predicted the EEG Cz recording very well (97% variance explained). In schizophrenia patients, the STG sources accounted for substantially (86%) and significantly (P < 0.0002) less variance. After MEG-derived STG activity was removed from the EEG Cz signal, the residual signal was dominated by 40 Hz activity, an indication that the remaining variance in EEG is probably contributed by other brain generators, rather than by random noise. Conclusions: Integrated MEG and EEG analysis can differentiate patients and controls, and suggests a basis for a well established abnormality in the cortical auditory response in schizophrenia, implicating a disorder of functional connectivity in the relationship between STG sources and other brain generators. (C) 2003 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available