Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2008 Nov 7:5:25.
doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-5-25.

Review on solving the inverse problem in EEG source analysis

Affiliations
Review

Review on solving the inverse problem in EEG source analysis

Roberta Grech et al. J Neuroeng Rehabil. .

Abstract

In this primer, we give a review of the inverse problem for EEG source localization. This is intended for the researchers new in the field to get insight in the state-of-the-art techniques used to find approximate solutions of the brain sources giving rise to a scalp potential recording. Furthermore, a review of the performance results of the different techniques is provided to compare these different inverse solutions. The authors also include the results of a Monte-Carlo analysis which they performed to compare four non parametric algorithms and hence contribute to what is presently recorded in the literature. An extensive list of references to the work of other researchers is also provided. This paper starts off with a mathematical description of the inverse problem and proceeds to discuss the two main categories of methods which were developed to solve the EEG inverse problem, mainly the non parametric and parametric methods. The main difference between the two is to whether a fixed number of dipoles is assumed a priori or not. Various techniques falling within these categories are described including minimum norm estimates and their generalizations, LORETA, sLORETA, VARETA, S-MAP, ST-MAP, Backus-Gilbert, LAURA, Shrinking LORETA FOCUSS (SLF), SSLOFO and ALF for non parametric methods and beamforming techniques, BESA, subspace techniques such as MUSIC and methods derived from it, FINES, simulated annealing and computational intelligence algorithms for parametric methods. From a review of the performance of these techniques as documented in the literature, one could conclude that in most cases the LORETA solution gives satisfactory results. In situations involving clusters of dipoles, higher resolution algorithms such as MUSIC or FINES are however preferred. Imposing reliable biophysical and psychological constraints, as done by LAURA has given superior results. The Monte-Carlo analysis performed, comparing WMN, LORETA, sLORETA and SLF, for different noise levels and different simulated source depths has shown that for single source localization, regularized sLORETA gives the best solution in terms of both localization error and ghost sources. Furthermore the computationally intensive solution given by SLF was not found to give any additional benefits under such simulated conditions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A three layer head model.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Methods to estimate the regularization parameter. (a) L-curve (b) Minimal Product Curve.
Figure 3
Figure 3
General block diagram for an artificial neural network system used for inverse source localization.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Genetic algorithm schema.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Individual Layers in which the simulated dipoles lie. Red crosses represent sources lying close to the surface (57 in total), black crosses represent sources lying in the middle of the spherical cortex model (37 in total) and blue crosses represent sources lying deep within the cortex (14 in total).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Box-whisker diagrams. These show the median (horizontal line within each box), the interquartile range (between the bottom and top of each box) and the range of scores (shown by the whiskers). Circles represent outliers. Plots (a) and (b) show the results for each of the four inverse solutions (horizontal axis) for error measure ED2 with a SNR of 5 dB. (a) shows the results without regularization and (b) shows the results with regularization.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. De Munck JC, Van Dijk BW, Spekreijse H. Mathematical Dipoles are Adequate to Describe Realistic Generators of Human Brain Activity. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 1988;35:960–966. doi: 10.1109/10.8677. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hallez H, Vanrumste B, Grech R, Muscat J, De Clercq W, Vergult A, D'Asseler Y, Camilleri KP, Fabri SG, Van Huffel S, Lemahieu I. Review on solving the forward problem in EEG source analysis. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2007;4 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Whittingstall K, Stroink G, Gates L, Connolly JF, Finley A. Effects of dipole position, orientation and noise on the accuracy of EEG source localization. Biomedical Engineering Online. 2003;2 http://www.biomedical-engineering-online.com/content/2/1/14 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baillet S, Garnero L. A Bayesian Approach to Introducing Anatomo-Functional Priors in the EEG/MEG Inverse Problem. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 1997;44:374–385. doi: 10.1109/10.568913. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pascual-Marqui RD. Review of Methods for Solving the EEG Inverse Problem. International Journal of Bioelectromagnetism. 1999;1:75–86. [Author's version]

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources