ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Accuracy of dipole source reconstruction in the 3-layer BEM model against the 5-layer BEM-FMM model.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To compare cortical dipole fitting spatial accuracy between the widely used yet highly simplified 3-layer and modern more realistic 5-layer BEM-FMM models with and without Methods: We generate simulated noiseless 256-channel EEG data from 5-layer (7-compartment) meshes of 15 subjects from the Connectome Young Adult dataset. For each subject, we test four dipole positions, three sets of conductivity values, and two types of head segmentation. We use the Results: The average position error (across all tested dipoles, subjects, and models) is ~4 mm, with a standard deviation of ~2 mm. The orientation error is ~20° on average, with a standard deviation of ~15°. Without AMR, the numerical inaccuracies produce a larger disagreement between the 3- and 5-layer models, with an average position error of ~8 mm (6 mm standard deviation), and an orientation error of 28° (28° standard deviation). Conclusions: The low-resolution 3-layer models provide excellent accuracy in dipole localization. On the other hand, dipole orientation is retrieved less accurately. Therefore, certain applications may require more realistic models for practical source reconstruction. AMR is a critical component for improving the accuracy of forward EEG computations using a high-resolution 5-layer volume conduction model. Significance: Improving EEG source reconstruction accuracy is important for several clinical applications, including epilepsy and other seizure-inducing conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.