4.6 Article

Magnetoencephalography signals are influenced by skull defects

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 125, Issue 8, Pages 1653-1662

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.12.099

Keywords

Magnetoencephalography; Skull hole; Breach rhythm; Biomagnetism; Electroencephalography; Volume conduction

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation [Ha2899/14-1]
  2. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [558425]
  3. German Academic Exchange Service [D/08/13928, 54388947]
  4. Australian Group of Eight

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Magnetoencephalography (MEG) signals had previously been hypothesized to have negligible sensitivity to skull defects. The objective is to experimentally investigate the influence of conducting skull defects on MEG and EEG signals. Methods: A miniaturized electric dipole was implanted in vivo into rabbit brains. Simultaneous recording using 64-channel EEG and 16-channel MEG was conducted, first above the intact skull and then above a skull defect. Skull defects were filled with agar gels, which had been formulated to have tissue-like homogeneous conductivities. The dipole was moved beneath the skull defects, and measurements were taken at regularly spaced points. Results: The EEG signal amplitude increased 2-10 times, whereas the MEG signal amplitude reduced by as much as 20%. The EEG signal amplitude deviated more when the source was under the edge of the defect, whereas the MEG signal amplitude deviated more when the source was central under the defect. The change in MEG field-map topography (relative difference measure, RDM* = 0.15) was geometrically related to the skull defect edge. Conclusions: MEG and EEG signals can be substantially affected by skull defects. Significance: MEG source modeling requires realistic volume conductor head models that incorporate skull defects. (C) 2013 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available