The effect of stimulation type, head modeling, and combined EEG and MEG on the source reconstruction of the somatosensory P20/N20 component

Modeling and experimental parameters influence the Electro‐ (EEG) and Magnetoencephalography (MEG) source analysis of the somatosensory P20/N20 component. In a sensitivity group study, we compare P20/N20 source analysis due to different stimulation type (Electric‐Wrist [EW], Braille‐Tactile [BT], or Pneumato‐Tactile [PT]), measurement modality (combined EEG/MEG – EMEG, EEG, or MEG) and head model (standard or individually skull‐conductivity calibrated including brain anisotropic conductivity). Considerable differences between pairs of stimulation types occurred (EW‐BT: 8.7 ± 3.3 mm/27.1° ± 16.4°, BT‐PT: 9 ± 5 mm/29.9° ± 17.3°, and EW‐PT: 9.8 ± 7.4 mm/15.9° ± 16.5° and 75% strength reduction of BT or PT when compared to EW) regardless of the head model used. EMEG has nearly no localization differences to MEG, but large ones to EEG (16.1 ± 4.9 mm), while source orientation differences are non‐negligible to both EEG (14° ± 3.7°) and MEG (12.5° ± 10.9°). Our calibration results show a considerable inter‐subject variability (3.1–14 mS/m) for skull conductivity. The comparison due to different head model show localization differences smaller for EMEG (EW: 3.4 ± 2.4 mm, BT: 3.7 ± 3.4 mm, and PT: 5.9 ± 6.8 mm) than for EEG (EW: 8.6 ± 8.3 mm, BT: 11.8 ± 6.2 mm, and PT: 10.5 ± 5.3 mm), while source orientation differences for EMEG (EW: 15.4° ± 6.3°, BT: 25.7° ± 15.2° and PT: 14° ± 11.5°) and EEG (EW: 14.6° ± 9.5°, BT: 16.3° ± 11.1° and PT: 12.9° ± 8.9°) are in the same range. Our results show that stimulation type, modality and head modeling all have a non‐negligible influence on the source reconstruction of the P20/N20 component. The complementary information of both modalities in EMEG can be exploited on the basis of detailed and individualized head models.