Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Source localization algorithms often show multiple active cortical areas as the source of electroencephalography (EEG). Yet, there is little data quantifying the accuracy of these results. In this paper, the performance of current source density source localization algorithms for the detection of multiple cortical sources of EEG data has been characterized.

METHODS: EEG data were generated by simulating multiple cortical sources (2-4) with the same strength or two sources with relative strength ratios of 1:1 to 4:1, and adding noise. These data were used to reconstruct the cortical sources using current source density (CSD) algorithms: sLORETA, MNLS, and LORETA using a p-norm with p equal to 1, 1.5 and 2. Precision (percentage of the reconstructed activity corresponding to simulated activity) and Recall (percentage of the simulated sources reconstructed) of each of the CSD algorithms were calculated.

RESULTS: While sLORETA has the best performance when only one source is present, when two or more sources are present LORETA with p equal to 1.5 performs better. When the relative strength of one of the sources is decreased, all algorithms have more difficulty reconstructing that source. However, LORETA 1.5 continues to outperform other algorithms. If only the strongest source is of interest sLORETA is recommended, while LORETA with p equal to 1.5 is recommended if two or more of the cortical sources are of interest. These results provide guidance for choosing a CSD algorithm to locate multiple cortical sources of EEG and for interpreting the results of these algorithms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e0147266
JournalPLoS One
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

electroencephalography
Electroencephalography
Information Storage and Retrieval
Noise

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

@article{873780e6245d4430bd9bbdc059cc4e56,
title = "Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Source localization algorithms often show multiple active cortical areas as the source of electroencephalography (EEG). Yet, there is little data quantifying the accuracy of these results. In this paper, the performance of current source density source localization algorithms for the detection of multiple cortical sources of EEG data has been characterized.METHODS: EEG data were generated by simulating multiple cortical sources (2-4) with the same strength or two sources with relative strength ratios of 1:1 to 4:1, and adding noise. These data were used to reconstruct the cortical sources using current source density (CSD) algorithms: sLORETA, MNLS, and LORETA using a p-norm with p equal to 1, 1.5 and 2. Precision (percentage of the reconstructed activity corresponding to simulated activity) and Recall (percentage of the simulated sources reconstructed) of each of the CSD algorithms were calculated.RESULTS: While sLORETA has the best performance when only one source is present, when two or more sources are present LORETA with p equal to 1.5 performs better. When the relative strength of one of the sources is decreased, all algorithms have more difficulty reconstructing that source. However, LORETA 1.5 continues to outperform other algorithms. If only the strongest source is of interest sLORETA is recommended, while LORETA with p equal to 1.5 is recommended if two or more of the cortical sources are of interest. These results provide guidance for choosing a CSD algorithm to locate multiple cortical sources of EEG and for interpreting the results of these algorithms.",
author = "Allison Bradley and Jun Yao and Dewald, {Julius P A} and Claus-Peter Richter",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0147266",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "e0147266",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "1",

}

Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources. / Bradley, Allison; Yao, Jun; Dewald, Julius P A; Richter, Claus-Peter.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 11, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. e0147266.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of Electroencephalography Source Localization Algorithms with Multiple Cortical Sources

AU - Bradley, Allison

AU - Yao, Jun

AU - Dewald, Julius P A

AU - Richter, Claus-Peter

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Source localization algorithms often show multiple active cortical areas as the source of electroencephalography (EEG). Yet, there is little data quantifying the accuracy of these results. In this paper, the performance of current source density source localization algorithms for the detection of multiple cortical sources of EEG data has been characterized.METHODS: EEG data were generated by simulating multiple cortical sources (2-4) with the same strength or two sources with relative strength ratios of 1:1 to 4:1, and adding noise. These data were used to reconstruct the cortical sources using current source density (CSD) algorithms: sLORETA, MNLS, and LORETA using a p-norm with p equal to 1, 1.5 and 2. Precision (percentage of the reconstructed activity corresponding to simulated activity) and Recall (percentage of the simulated sources reconstructed) of each of the CSD algorithms were calculated.RESULTS: While sLORETA has the best performance when only one source is present, when two or more sources are present LORETA with p equal to 1.5 performs better. When the relative strength of one of the sources is decreased, all algorithms have more difficulty reconstructing that source. However, LORETA 1.5 continues to outperform other algorithms. If only the strongest source is of interest sLORETA is recommended, while LORETA with p equal to 1.5 is recommended if two or more of the cortical sources are of interest. These results provide guidance for choosing a CSD algorithm to locate multiple cortical sources of EEG and for interpreting the results of these algorithms.

AB - BACKGROUND: Source localization algorithms often show multiple active cortical areas as the source of electroencephalography (EEG). Yet, there is little data quantifying the accuracy of these results. In this paper, the performance of current source density source localization algorithms for the detection of multiple cortical sources of EEG data has been characterized.METHODS: EEG data were generated by simulating multiple cortical sources (2-4) with the same strength or two sources with relative strength ratios of 1:1 to 4:1, and adding noise. These data were used to reconstruct the cortical sources using current source density (CSD) algorithms: sLORETA, MNLS, and LORETA using a p-norm with p equal to 1, 1.5 and 2. Precision (percentage of the reconstructed activity corresponding to simulated activity) and Recall (percentage of the simulated sources reconstructed) of each of the CSD algorithms were calculated.RESULTS: While sLORETA has the best performance when only one source is present, when two or more sources are present LORETA with p equal to 1.5 performs better. When the relative strength of one of the sources is decreased, all algorithms have more difficulty reconstructing that source. However, LORETA 1.5 continues to outperform other algorithms. If only the strongest source is of interest sLORETA is recommended, while LORETA with p equal to 1.5 is recommended if two or more of the cortical sources are of interest. These results provide guidance for choosing a CSD algorithm to locate multiple cortical sources of EEG and for interpreting the results of these algorithms.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84977999286&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84977999286&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0147266

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0147266

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - e0147266

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 1

ER -