Search

Previous studies have found electroencephalogram (EEG) amplitude and scalp topography differences between neurotypical and neurological/neurosurgical groups, being interpreted at the cognitive level. However, these comparisons are invariably accompanied by anatomical changes. Critical to EEG are the so‐called volume currents, which are affected by the spatial distribution of the different tissues in the head. We investigated the effect of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)‐filled cavities on simulated EEG scalp data. We simulated EEG scalp potentials for known sources using different volume conduction models: a reference model (i.e., unlesioned brain) and models with realistic CSF‐filled cavities gradually increasing in size. We used this approach for a single source close or far from the CSF‐lesion cavity, and for a scenario with a distributed configuration of sources (i.e., a “cognitive event‐related potential effect”). The magnitude and topography errors between the reference and lesion models were quantified. For the single‐source simulation close to the lesion, the CSF‐filled lesion modulated signal amplitude with more than 17% magnitude error and topography with more than 9% topographical error. Negligible modulation was found for the single source far from the lesion. For the multisource simulations of the cognitive effect, the CSF‐filled lesion modulated signal amplitude with more than 6% magnitude error and topography with more than 16% topography error in a nonmonotonic fashion. In conclusion, the impact of a CSF‐filled cavity cannot be neglected for scalp‐level EEG data. Especially when group‐level comparisons are made, any scalp‐level attenuated, aberrant, or absent effects are difficult to interpret without considering the confounding effect of CSF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modeling and experimental parameters influence the Electro‐ (EEG) and Magnetoencephalography (MEG) source analysis of the somatosensory P20/N20 component. In a sensitivity group study, we compare P20/N20 source analysis due to different stimulation type (Electric‐Wrist [EW], Braille‐Tactile [BT], or Pneumato‐Tactile [PT]), measurement modality (combined EEG/MEG – EMEG, EEG, or MEG) and head model (standard or individually skull‐conductivity calibrated including brain anisotropic conductivity). Considerable differences between pairs of stimulation types occurred (EW‐BT: 8.7 ± 3.3 mm/27.1° ± 16.4°, BT‐PT: 9 ± 5 mm/29.9° ± 17.3°, and EW‐PT: 9.8 ± 7.4 mm/15.9° ± 16.5° and 75% strength reduction of BT or PT when compared to EW) regardless of the head model used. EMEG has nearly no localization differences to MEG, but large ones to EEG (16.1 ± 4.9 mm), while source orientation differences are non‐negligible to both EEG (14° ± 3.7°) and MEG (12.5° ± 10.9°). Our calibration results show a considerable inter‐subject variability (3.1–14 mS/m) for skull conductivity. The comparison due to different head model show localization differences smaller for EMEG (EW: 3.4 ± 2.4 mm, BT: 3.7 ± 3.4 mm, and PT: 5.9 ± 6.8 mm) than for EEG (EW: 8.6 ± 8.3 mm, BT: 11.8 ± 6.2 mm, and PT: 10.5 ± 5.3 mm), while source orientation differences for EMEG (EW: 15.4° ± 6.3°, BT: 25.7° ± 15.2° and PT: 14° ± 11.5°) and EEG (EW: 14.6° ± 9.5°, BT: 16.3° ± 11.1° and PT: 12.9° ± 8.9°) are in the same range. Our results show that stimulation type, modality and head modeling all have a non‐negligible influence on the source reconstruction of the P20/N20 component. The complementary information of both modalities in EMEG can be exploited on the basis of detailed and individualized head models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]