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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |