4.3 Article

Cortical Potential Imaging of Somatosensory Evoked Potentials by Means of the Boundary Element Method in Pediatric Epilepsy Patients

Journal

BRAIN TOPOGRAPHY
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages 333-343

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10548-010-0155-9

Keywords

High-resolution EEG; Cortical potential imaging; SEP; Central sulcus; Cortical potential waveform

Funding

  1. NIH [R01EB00178, R01EB007920, R01EB006433]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING [R01EB006433, R01EB007920, R01EB000178] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to assess the feasibility of identifying the primary hand sensory area and central sulcus in pediatric patients using the cortical potential imaging (CPI) method from the scalp recorded somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). The CPI method was used to reconstruct the cortical potential distribution from the scalp potentials with the boundary element (3-layer: scalp, skull and brain) head model based on MR images of individual subjects. The cortical potentials estimated from the pre-operative scalp SEPs of four pediatric patients, were compared with the post-op subdural SEP recordings made in the same subjects. Estimated and directly recorded cortical SEP maps showed comparable spatial patterns on the cortical surface in four patients (spatial correlation coefficient > 0.7 in the SEP spikes). For two of four patients, the estimated waveforms correlated significantly to the waveforms obtained by direct cortical recordings. The present results demonstrated the feasibility of the cortical potential imaging approach in noninvasive imaging spatial distribution and temporal waveforms of cortical potentials for pediatric patients. These also suggest that the CPI method may provide a promising means of estimating the cortical potential and noninvasive localizing the central sulcus to aid surgical planning for pediatric patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available