4.7 Article

The advantage of combining MEG and EEG:: Comparison to fMRI in focally stimulated visual cortex

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 1225-1235

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.066

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P41RR14075, P41 RR014075] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS037462-04, R56 NS037462, R01 NS018741, R01 NS037462-05, NS18741, R01 NS037462-06, NS44623, R01 NS044623, R01 NS037462, NS37462, R01 NS037462-07] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To exploit the high (millisecond) temporal resolution of magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) for measuring neuronal dynamics within well-defined brain regions, it is important to quantitatively assess their localizing ability. Previous modeling studies and empirical data suggest that a combination of MEG and EEG signals should yield the most accurate localization, due to their complementary sensitivities. However, these two modalities have rarely, been explicitly combined for source estimation in studies of recorded brain activity, and a quantitative empirical assessment of their abilities, combined and separate, is currently lacking. Here we studied early visual responses to focal Gabor patches flashed during subject fixation. MEG and EEG data were collected simultaneously and were compared with the functional MRI (fMRI) localization produced by identical stimuli in the same subjects. This allowed direct evaluation of the localization accuracy of separate and combined MEG/EEG inverse solutions. We found that the localization accuracy of the combined MEG + EEG solution was consistently better than that of either modality alone, using three different source estimation approaches. Further analysis suggests that this improved localization is due to the different properties of the two imaging modalities rather than simply due to increased total channel number. Thus, combining MEG and EEG data is important for high-resolution spatiotemporal studies of the human brain. Published by Elsevier 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