Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15083526›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2004

Multimodal integration of EEG and MEG data: a simulation study with variable signal-to-noise ratio and number of sensors.

Fabio Babiloni, Claudio Babiloni, Filippo Carducci, Gian Luca Romani, Paolo M Rossini, Leonardo M Angelone, Febo Cincotti

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Estimation of effective and functional cortical connectivity from neuroelectric and hemodynamic recordings.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2009
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Fabio BabiloniDipartimento di Fisiologia Umana e Farmacologia, Università di Roma "La Sapienza," Roma, Italy. Fabio.Baniloni@uniroma1.it
Claudio Babiloni
Filippo Carducci
Gian Luca Romani
Paolo M Rossini
Leonardo M Angelone
Febo Cincotti
Sapienza University of Rome · ITFondazione Santa Lucia · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITTecnologie Avanzate (Italy) · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous simulation studies have stressed the importance of the multimodal integration of electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) data in the estimation of cortical current density. In such studies, no systematic variations of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and of the number of sensors were explicitly taken into account in the estimation process. We investigated effects of variable SNR and number of sensors on the accuracy of current density estimate by using multimodal EEG and MEG data. This was done by using as the dependent variable both the correlation coefficient (CC) and the relative error (RE) between imposed and estimated waveforms at the level of cortical region of interests (ROI). A realistic head and cortical surface model was used. Factors used in the simulations were: (1). the SNR of the simulated scalp data (with seven levels: infinite, 30, 20, 10, 5, 3, 1); (2). the particular inverse operator used to estimate the cortical source activity from the simulated scalp data (INVERSE, with two levels, including minimum norm and weighted minimum norm); and (3). the number of EEG or MEG sensors employed in the analysis (SENSORS, with three levels: 128, 61, 29 for EEG and 153, 61, or 38 in MEG). Analysis of variance demonstrated that all the considered factors significantly affect the CC and the RE indexes. Combined EEG-MEG data produced statistically significant lower RE and higher CC in source current density reconstructions compared to that estimated by the EEG and MEG data considered separately. These observations hold for the range of SNR values presented by the analyzed data. The superiority of current density estimation by multimodal integration of EEG and MEG was not due to differences in number of sensors between unimodal (EEG, MEG) and combined (EEG-MEG) inverse estimates. In fact, the current density estimate relative to the EEG-MEG multimodal integration involved 61 EEG plus 63 MEG sensors, whereas estimations carried out with the single modalities alone involved 128 sensors for EEG and 153 sensors for MEG. The results of the simulations also suggest that the use of simultaneous 29 EEG sensors during the MEG measurements carried out with full sensor arrangements (153 sensors) returned an accuracy of the cortical source estimate statistically similar to that obtained by combining 64 EEG and 153 MEG sensors.

Indexed as

Brain MappingElectroencephalographyMagnetoencephalographyBrainElectrodesHumansModels, NeurologicalPhantoms, ImagingSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID15083526
PMCPMC6872116
OpenAlexW1985980444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.