4.5 Article

Technical solutions for simultaneous MEG and SEEG recordings: towards routine clinical use

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
卷 38, 期 10, 页码 N118-N127

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6579/aa7655

关键词

magnetoencephalography; intracerebral EEG; simultaneous recordings; epilepsy

资金

  1. joint Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)
  2. Direction Generale de l'Offre de Sante (DGOS) under grant VIBRATIONS [ANR-13-PRTS-0011-01]
  3. A*MIDEX project - 'Investissements d'Avenir' French government program [ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02]
  4. [ANR-11-INBS-0006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The simultaneous recording of intracerebral EEG (stereotaxic EEG, SEEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a promising strategy that provides both local and global views on brain pathological activity. Yet, acquiring simultaneous signals poses difficult technical issues that hamper their use in clinical routine. Our objective was thus to develop a set of solutions for recording a high number of SEEG channels while preserving signal quality. Approach: We recorded data in a patient with drug resistant epilepsy during presurgical evaluation. We used dedicated insertion screws and optically insulated amplifiers. We recorded 137 SEEG contacts on 10 depth electrodes (5-15 contacts each) and 248 MEG channels (magnetometers). Signal quality was assessed by comparing the distribution of RMS values in different frequency bands to a reference set of MEG acquisitions. Main results: The quality of signals was excellent for both MEG and SEEG; for MEG, it was comparable to that of MEG signals without concurrent SEEG. Discharges involving several structures on SEEG were visible on MEG, whereas discharges limited in space were not seen at the surface. Significance: SEEG can now be recorded simultaneously with whole-head MEG in routine. This opens new avenues, both methodologically for understanding signals and improving signal processing methods, and clinically for future combined analyses.

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

4.5
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