4.7 Article

Independent Component Analysis (ICA) of Generalized Spike Wave Discharges in fMRI: Comparison with General Linear Model-Based EEG-fMRI

期刊

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 209-217

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.21010

关键词

independent component analysis; general linear model; EEG-fMRI; epilepsy

资金

  1. CIHR [38079-3] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most EEG-fMRI studies in epileptic patients are analyzed using the general linear model (GLM), which assumes a known hemodynamic response function (HRF) to epileptic spikes. In contrast, independent component analysis (ICA) can extract blood-oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) responses without imposing constraints on the HRF. ICA might therefore detect responses that vary in time and shape, and that are not detected in the GLM analysis. In this study, we compared the findings of ICA and GLM analyses in 12 patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy. Spatial ICA was used to extract independent components from the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. A deconvolution method identified component time courses significantly related to the generalized EEG discharges, without constraining the shape of the HRF. The results from the ICA analysis were compared to those from the GLM analysis. GLM maps and ICA maps showed significant correlation and revealed BOLD responses in the thalamus, caudate nucleus, and default mode areas. In patients with a low rate of discharges per minute, the GLM analysis detected BOLD signal changes within the thalamus and the caudate nucleus that were not revealed by the ICA. In conclusion, ICA is a viable alternative technique to GLM analyses in EEG-fMRI studies related to generalized discharges. This study demonstrated that the BOLD response largely resembles the standard HRF and that GLM analysis is adequate. However, ICA is more dependent on a sufficient number of events than GLM analysis. Hum Brain Mapp 32: 209-217, 2011. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据