What are we measuring with M/EEG (and what are we measuring with) Gareth Barnes UCL SPM Course – May 2012 – London.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EEG-MEG source reconstruction
Advertisements

Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Dynamic causal Modelling for evoked responses Stefan Kiebel Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging UCL.
EEG/MEG Source Localisation
What are we measuring in EEG and MEG? Methods for Dummies 2007 Matthew Longo.
What are we measuring with
What are we measuring with M/EEG? Luzia Troebinger.
Basis of the M/EEG Signal
Basis of the M/EEG signal Evelyne Mercure & Bonnie Breining.
M/EEG forward problem & solutions Brussels 2011 SPM-M/EEG course January 2011 C. Phillips, Cyclotron Research Centre, ULg, Belgium.
BASIS OF M/EEG SIGNAL Maciej Cosilo Panagiotis Papagiannopoulos.
Electrophysiology. Electroencephalography Electrical potential is usually measured at many sites on the head surface More is sometimes better.
From Neuronal activity to EEG/MEG signals
What are we measuring with EEG and MEG James Kilner.
Electrophysiology.
The M/EEG inverse problem
Subdural Grid Intracranial electrodes typically cannot be used in human studies It is possible to record from the cortical surface Subdural grid on surface.
Electroencephalography and the Event-Related Potential
An introduction to MEG Lecture 1 Matt Brookes.
How much about our interactions with – and experience of – our world can be deduced from basic principles? This talk reviews recent attempts to understand.
Source Localization for EEG/MEG Stavroula Kousta Martin Chadwick Methods for Dummies 2007.
Closed and Open Electrical Fields
The M/EEG inverse problem and solutions Gareth R. Barnes.
The M/EEG inverse problem and solutions Gareth R. Barnes.
Jeffrey M Politsky, MD FRCP(C) Northeast Regional Epilepsy Group Atlantic Neuroscience institute.
Rosalyn Moran Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute Dynamic Causal Modelling for Cross Spectral Densities.
Magnetoencephalography (MEG)
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Leipzig, Germany A hierarchy of time-scales and the brain Stefan Kiebel.

Source localization MfD 2010, 17th Feb 2010
SENSOR LEVEL ANALYSIS AND SOURCE LOCALISATION in M/EEG METHODS FOR DUMMIES Mrudul Bhatt & Wenjun Bai.
Generative Models of M/EEG: Group inversion and MEG+EEG+fMRI multimodal integration Rik Henson (with much input from Karl Friston)
Multimodal Brain Imaging Will D. Penny FIL, London Guillaume Flandin, CEA, Paris Nelson Trujillo-Barreto, CNC, Havana.
DCM for ERPs/EFPs Clare Palmer & Elina Jacobs Expert: Dimitris Pinotsis.
EEG/MEG Source Localisation SPM Course – Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging – Oct ? ? Jérémie Mattout, Christophe Phillips Jean Daunizeau Guillaume.
EEG/MEG source reconstruction
Dynamic Causal Modelling of Evoked Responses in EEG/MEG Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London Stefan Kiebel.
Dynamic causal modelling of electromagnetic responses Karl Friston - Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, UCL In recent years,
Abstract This talk will present a general approach (DCM) to the identification of dynamic input-state-output systems such as the network of equivalent.
Dynamic Causal Modelling for EEG and MEG
Connecting neural mass models to functional imaging Olivier Faugeras, INRIA ● Basic neuroanatomy Basic neuroanatomy ● Neuronal circuits of the neocortex.
Dynamic Causal Model for evoked responses in MEG/EEG Rosalyn Moran.
Multimodal Brain Imaging Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College, London Guillaume Flandin, CEA, Paris Nelson Trujillo-Barreto, CNC,
Dr. Ali Saad modified from Dr. Carlos Davila Southe. metho univ 1 EEG Brain signal measurement and analysis 414BMT Dr Ali Saad, College of Applied medical.
M/EEG: Statistical analysis and source localisation Expert: Vladimir Litvak Mathilde De Kerangal & Anne Löffler Methods for Dummies, March 2, 2016.
The gray-white matter boundary defines the locations and directions of the primary currents in the cortex and can be used as an anatomical constraint for.
K. Gireesan1, T. S. Radhakrishnan1, Joseph Bensigh3, S
DCM for evoked responses Ryszard Auksztulewicz SPM for M/EEG course, 2015.
Electrophysiology. Neurons are Electrical Remember that Neurons have electrically charged membranes they also rapidly discharge and recharge those membranes.
1 Jean Daunizeau Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging 23 / 10 / 2009 EEG-MEG source reconstruction.
DCM for ERP/ERF: theory and practice Melanie Boly Based on slides from Chris Phillips, Klaas Stephan and Stefan Kiebel.
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and its role
EEG Definitions EEG1: electroencephalogram—i.e., the “data”
Dynamic Causal Modeling of Endogenous Fluctuations
Cortex Sept 22, 2017 – DAY 11 Brain & Language
SPM for M/EEG - introduction
Anatomy of the head March 5th 2009
What are we measuring with M/EEG?
M/EEG Statistical Analysis & Source Localization
What are we measuring with M/EEG (and what are we measuring with)
Dynamic Causal Model for evoked responses in M/EEG Rosalyn Moran.
DCM for evoked responses
Dynamic Causal Modelling for M/EEG
Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging
EEG and MEG: Relevance to Neuroscience
CRIS Workshop: Computational Neuroscience and Bayesian Modelling
Basis of the MEG/EEG Signal
MEG fundamentals.
M/EEG Statistical Analysis & Source Localization
Dynamic Causal Modelling for evoked responses
Presentation transcript:

What are we measuring with M/EEG (and what are we measuring with) Gareth Barnes UCL SPM Course – May 2012 – London

A brief history The EEG & MEG instrumentation Neuronal basis of the signal Forward models Outline

EEG history 1875: Richard Caton ( ) measured currents inbetween the cortical surface and the skull, in dogs and monkeys 1929: Hans Berger ( ) first EEG in humans (his young son), description of alpha and beta waves 1950s. Grey Walter ( 1910 – 1977). Invention of topographic EEG maps.

MEG history David Cohen 1962: Josephson effect 1968: first (noisy) measure of a magnetic brain signal [Cohen, Science 68] 1970: James Zimmerman invents the ‘Superconducting quantum interference device’ (SQUID) 1972: first (1 sensor) MEG recording based on SQUID [Cohen, Science 1972] 1973: Josephson wins the Nobel Prize in Physics - And goes on to study paranormal activity… Brian-David Josephson

It is an ultrasensitive detector of magnetic flux. It is made up of a superconducting ring interrupted by one or two Josephson Junctions. Can measure field changes of the order of 10^-15 (femto) Tesla (compare to the earth’s field of 10^-4 Tesla) SQUIDS

There are different types of sensors Magnetometers: measure the magnetic flux through a single coil Gradiometers: when more flux passes through the lower coil (near the head) than the upper get a net change in current flow at the inut coil. Flux transformers

The EEG & MEG instrumentation Sensors (Pick up coil) SQUIDs MEG °C

From a single neuron to a neuronal assembly/column - A single active neuron is not sufficient. ~100,000 simultaneously active neurons are needed to generate a measurable M/EEG signal. - Pyramidal cells are the main direct neuronal sources of EEG & MEG signals. - Synaptic currents but not action potentials generate EEG/MEG signals What do we measure with EEG & MEG ?

Holmgren et al Lateral connectivity -local

Volume currents Magnetic field Electrical potential difference (EEG) 5-10nAm Aggregate post-synaptic currents of ~100,000 pyrammidal neurons cortex skull scalp MEG pick-up coil

MEG EEG What do we measure with EEG & MEG ? From a single source to the sensor: MEG

Fig. 14. Return currents for the left thalamic source on a coronal cut through the isotropic model (top row) and the model with 1:10 anisotropic white matter compartment (volume constraint, bottom row): the return current directions are indicated by the texture and the magnitude is color coded. C.H. Wolters et al. / NeuroImage 30 (2006) 813– 826

Lead fields MEG EEG Dipolar sources Head tissues (conductivity & geometry) The forward problem

Different head models (lead field definitions) for the forward problem Finite Element Boundary Element Multiple Spheres Single Sphere Simpler models

Can MEG see gyral sources ? A perfectly radial source in a spherical conductor produces no external magnetic field.

A quantitative assessment of the sensitivity of whole-head MEG to activity in the adult human cortex. Arjan Hillebrand et al., NeuroImage 2002 Source depth, rather than orientation, limits the sensitivity of MEG to electrical activity on the cortical surface. There are thin strips (approximately 2mm wide) of very poor resolvability at the crests of gyri, however these strips are abutted by elements with nominal tangential component yet high resolvability due to their proximity to the sensor array. Can MEG see gyral sources ?

EEG Auditory Brainstem Response Wave I/II (<3ms) generated in auditory nerve or at entry to brainstem+ cochlear nucleus Wave III. Ipsilateral cochlear nucleus / superior olivary complex Wave IV. Fibres leaving cochlear nucleus and/or superior olivary complex Wave V. Lateral lemniscus

Volume 295, Issue 7654Volume 295, Issue 7654, 9 May 1970, Pages IS ALPHA RHYTHM AN ARTEFACT? O. C. J. Lippold and G. E. K. Novotny Department of Physiology, University College, London, W.C.1, United Kingdon Abstract It is postulated that occipital alpha rhythm in man is not generated in the occipital cortex, but by tremor of the extraocular muscles. It is thought that tremor modulates the corneoretinal potential and this modulation is recorded at the occiput because of the anatomical organisation of the orbital contents within the skull.

Summary EEG is sensitive to deep (and radial) sources but a very precise head model is required to get an accurate picture of current flow. MEG is relatively insensitive to deeper sources but forward model is simple.

Supp_Motor_Area Parietal_Sup Frontal_Inf_Oper Occipital_Mid Frontal_Med_Orb Calcarine Heschl Insula Cingulum_Ant ParaHippocampal Hippocampus Putamen Amygdala Caudate Cingulum_Post Brainstem Thalamus STN Hung et al. 2010; Cornwell et al. 2007, 2008 Parkonen et al Cornwell et al. 2008; Riggs et al RMS Lead field Over subjects and voxels Timmerman et al MEG Sensitivity to depth

Sqrt(Trials) sqrt(Noise Bandwidth) 400 Trials, 40Hz BW200 Trials, 20 Hz BW Sensitivity can be improved by knowing signal of interest

Forward problem Lead fields MEG EEG Dipolar sources Lead fields forward model

Y = g(  )+  forward model MEG The inverse problem For example, can make a good guess at realistic orientation (along pyrammidal cell bodies, perpendicular to cortex) EEG The inverse problem (estimating source activity from sensor data) is ill-posed. So you have add some prior assumptions

Summary Measuring signals due to aggregate post- synaptic currents (modeled as dipoles) Lead fields are the predicted signal produced by a dipole of unit amplitude. MEG is limited by SNR. Higher SNR= resolution of deeper structures. EEG is limited by head models. More accurate head models= more accurate reconstruction.

Google Ngram viewer Thanks to Laurence Hunt and Tim Behrens Occurrence in English language texts EEG fMRI MEG

Logothetis 2003 Local Field Potential (LFP) / BOLD

Note that the huge dimensionality of the data allows you to infer a lot more than source location.. (DCM talks tomorrow) For example, gamma frequency seems to relate to amount of GABA. Muthukumaraswamy et al. 2009

Jean Daunizeau Karl Friston James Kilner Stefan Kiebel Guillaume Flandin Vladimir Litvak Christophe Phillips Rik Henson Marta Garrido Will Penny Rosalyn Moran Jérémie Mattout JM Schoffelen Arjan Hillebrand