Cargando…

Comparison of beamformer implementations for MEG source localization

Beamformers are applied for estimating spatiotemporal characteristics of neuronal sources underlying measured MEG/EEG signals. Several MEG analysis toolboxes include an implementation of a linearly constrained minimum-variance (LCMV) beamformer. However, differences in implementations and in their r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jaiswal, Amit, Nenonen, Jukka, Stenroos, Matti, Gramfort, Alexandre, Dalal, Sarang S., Westner, Britta U., Litvak, Vladimir, Mosher, John C., Schoffelen, Jan-Mathijs, Witton, Caroline, Oostenveld, Robert, Parkkonen, Lauri
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Academic Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322560/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32278091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116797
_version_ 1783551667221823488
author Jaiswal, Amit
Nenonen, Jukka
Stenroos, Matti
Gramfort, Alexandre
Dalal, Sarang S.
Westner, Britta U.
Litvak, Vladimir
Mosher, John C.
Schoffelen, Jan-Mathijs
Witton, Caroline
Oostenveld, Robert
Parkkonen, Lauri
author_facet Jaiswal, Amit
Nenonen, Jukka
Stenroos, Matti
Gramfort, Alexandre
Dalal, Sarang S.
Westner, Britta U.
Litvak, Vladimir
Mosher, John C.
Schoffelen, Jan-Mathijs
Witton, Caroline
Oostenveld, Robert
Parkkonen, Lauri
author_sort Jaiswal, Amit
collection PubMed
description Beamformers are applied for estimating spatiotemporal characteristics of neuronal sources underlying measured MEG/EEG signals. Several MEG analysis toolboxes include an implementation of a linearly constrained minimum-variance (LCMV) beamformer. However, differences in implementations and in their results complicate the selection and application of beamformers and may hinder their wider adoption in research and clinical use. Additionally, combinations of different MEG sensor types (such as magnetometers and planar gradiometers) and application of preprocessing methods for interference suppression, such as signal space separation (SSS), can affect the results in different ways for different implementations. So far, a systematic evaluation of the different implementations has not been performed. Here, we compared the localization performance of the LCMV beamformer pipelines in four widely used open-source toolboxes (MNE-Python, FieldTrip, DAiSS (SPM12), and Brainstorm) using datasets both with and without SSS interference suppression. We analyzed MEG data that were i) simulated, ii) recorded from a static and moving phantom, and iii) recorded from a healthy volunteer receiving auditory, visual, and somatosensory stimulation. We also investigated the effects of SSS and the combination of the magnetometer and gradiometer signals. We quantified how localization error and point-spread volume vary with the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in all four toolboxes. When applied carefully to MEG data with a typical SNR (3–15 ​dB), all four toolboxes localized the sources reliably; however, they differed in their sensitivity to preprocessing parameters. As expected, localizations were highly unreliable at very low SNR, but we found high localization error also at very high SNRs for the first three toolboxes while Brainstorm showed greater robustness but with lower spatial resolution. We also found that the SNR improvement offered by SSS led to more accurate localization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7322560
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Academic Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73225602020-08-01 Comparison of beamformer implementations for MEG source localization Jaiswal, Amit Nenonen, Jukka Stenroos, Matti Gramfort, Alexandre Dalal, Sarang S. Westner, Britta U. Litvak, Vladimir Mosher, John C. Schoffelen, Jan-Mathijs Witton, Caroline Oostenveld, Robert Parkkonen, Lauri Neuroimage Article Beamformers are applied for estimating spatiotemporal characteristics of neuronal sources underlying measured MEG/EEG signals. Several MEG analysis toolboxes include an implementation of a linearly constrained minimum-variance (LCMV) beamformer. However, differences in implementations and in their results complicate the selection and application of beamformers and may hinder their wider adoption in research and clinical use. Additionally, combinations of different MEG sensor types (such as magnetometers and planar gradiometers) and application of preprocessing methods for interference suppression, such as signal space separation (SSS), can affect the results in different ways for different implementations. So far, a systematic evaluation of the different implementations has not been performed. Here, we compared the localization performance of the LCMV beamformer pipelines in four widely used open-source toolboxes (MNE-Python, FieldTrip, DAiSS (SPM12), and Brainstorm) using datasets both with and without SSS interference suppression. We analyzed MEG data that were i) simulated, ii) recorded from a static and moving phantom, and iii) recorded from a healthy volunteer receiving auditory, visual, and somatosensory stimulation. We also investigated the effects of SSS and the combination of the magnetometer and gradiometer signals. We quantified how localization error and point-spread volume vary with the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in all four toolboxes. When applied carefully to MEG data with a typical SNR (3–15 ​dB), all four toolboxes localized the sources reliably; however, they differed in their sensitivity to preprocessing parameters. As expected, localizations were highly unreliable at very low SNR, but we found high localization error also at very high SNRs for the first three toolboxes while Brainstorm showed greater robustness but with lower spatial resolution. We also found that the SNR improvement offered by SSS led to more accurate localization. Academic Press 2020-08-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7322560/ /pubmed/32278091 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116797 Text en © 2020 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Jaiswal, Amit
Nenonen, Jukka
Stenroos, Matti
Gramfort, Alexandre
Dalal, Sarang S.
Westner, Britta U.
Litvak, Vladimir
Mosher, John C.
Schoffelen, Jan-Mathijs
Witton, Caroline
Oostenveld, Robert
Parkkonen, Lauri
Comparison of beamformer implementations for MEG source localization
title Comparison of beamformer implementations for MEG source localization
title_full Comparison of beamformer implementations for MEG source localization
title_fullStr Comparison of beamformer implementations for MEG source localization
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of beamformer implementations for MEG source localization
title_short Comparison of beamformer implementations for MEG source localization
title_sort comparison of beamformer implementations for meg source localization
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322560/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32278091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116797
work_keys_str_mv AT jaiswalamit comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization
AT nenonenjukka comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization
AT stenroosmatti comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization
AT gramfortalexandre comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization
AT dalalsarangs comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization
AT westnerbrittau comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization
AT litvakvladimir comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization
AT mosherjohnc comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization
AT schoffelenjanmathijs comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization
AT wittoncaroline comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization
AT oostenveldrobert comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization
AT parkkonenlauri comparisonofbeamformerimplementationsformegsourcelocalization