Cargando…

Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources

BACKGROUND: Source localization algorithms often show multiple active cortical areas as the source of electroencephalography (EEG). Yet, there is little data quantifying the accuracy of these results. In this paper, the performance of current source density source localization algorithms for the det...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bradley, Allison, Yao, Jun, Dewald, Jules, Richter, Claus-Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4725774/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26809000
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147266
_version_ 1782411682963783680
author Bradley, Allison
Yao, Jun
Dewald, Jules
Richter, Claus-Peter
author_facet Bradley, Allison
Yao, Jun
Dewald, Jules
Richter, Claus-Peter
author_sort Bradley, Allison
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Source localization algorithms often show multiple active cortical areas as the source of electroencephalography (EEG). Yet, there is little data quantifying the accuracy of these results. In this paper, the performance of current source density source localization algorithms for the detection of multiple cortical sources of EEG data has been characterized. METHODS: EEG data were generated by simulating multiple cortical sources (2–4) with the same strength or two sources with relative strength ratios of 1:1 to 4:1, and adding noise. These data were used to reconstruct the cortical sources using current source density (CSD) algorithms: sLORETA, MNLS, and LORETA using a p-norm with p equal to 1, 1.5 and 2. Precision (percentage of the reconstructed activity corresponding to simulated activity) and Recall (percentage of the simulated sources reconstructed) of each of the CSD algorithms were calculated. RESULTS: While sLORETA has the best performance when only one source is present, when two or more sources are present LORETA with p equal to 1.5 performs better. When the relative strength of one of the sources is decreased, all algorithms have more difficulty reconstructing that source. However, LORETA 1.5 continues to outperform other algorithms. If only the strongest source is of interest sLORETA is recommended, while LORETA with p equal to 1.5 is recommended if two or more of the cortical sources are of interest. These results provide guidance for choosing a CSD algorithm to locate multiple cortical sources of EEG and for interpreting the results of these algorithms.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4725774
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47257742016-02-03 Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources Bradley, Allison Yao, Jun Dewald, Jules Richter, Claus-Peter PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Source localization algorithms often show multiple active cortical areas as the source of electroencephalography (EEG). Yet, there is little data quantifying the accuracy of these results. In this paper, the performance of current source density source localization algorithms for the detection of multiple cortical sources of EEG data has been characterized. METHODS: EEG data were generated by simulating multiple cortical sources (2–4) with the same strength or two sources with relative strength ratios of 1:1 to 4:1, and adding noise. These data were used to reconstruct the cortical sources using current source density (CSD) algorithms: sLORETA, MNLS, and LORETA using a p-norm with p equal to 1, 1.5 and 2. Precision (percentage of the reconstructed activity corresponding to simulated activity) and Recall (percentage of the simulated sources reconstructed) of each of the CSD algorithms were calculated. RESULTS: While sLORETA has the best performance when only one source is present, when two or more sources are present LORETA with p equal to 1.5 performs better. When the relative strength of one of the sources is decreased, all algorithms have more difficulty reconstructing that source. However, LORETA 1.5 continues to outperform other algorithms. If only the strongest source is of interest sLORETA is recommended, while LORETA with p equal to 1.5 is recommended if two or more of the cortical sources are of interest. These results provide guidance for choosing a CSD algorithm to locate multiple cortical sources of EEG and for interpreting the results of these algorithms. Public Library of Science 2016-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4725774/ /pubmed/26809000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147266 Text en © 2016 Bradley et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bradley, Allison
Yao, Jun
Dewald, Jules
Richter, Claus-Peter
Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources
title Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources
title_full Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources
title_fullStr Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources
title_short Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources
title_sort evaluation of electroencephalography source localization algorithms with multiple cortical sources
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4725774/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26809000
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147266
work_keys_str_mv AT bradleyallison evaluationofelectroencephalographysourcelocalizationalgorithmswithmultiplecorticalsources
AT yaojun evaluationofelectroencephalographysourcelocalizationalgorithmswithmultiplecorticalsources
AT dewaldjules evaluationofelectroencephalographysourcelocalizationalgorithmswithmultiplecorticalsources
AT richterclauspeter evaluationofelectroencephalographysourcelocalizationalgorithmswithmultiplecorticalsources