4.6 Article

Utility of temporally-extended signal space separation algorithm for magnetic noise from vagal nerve stimulators

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 124, 期 7, 页码 1277-1282

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.03.082

关键词

A temporally-extended signal space separation algorithm; Vagal nerve stimulator; Magnetoencephalography

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-EB009048, R01-NS074980]
  2. Epilepsy Center of the Cleveland Clinic Neurological Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the utility of a temporally-extended signal space separation algorithm (tSSS) for patients with vagal nerve stimulator (VNS). Methods: We evaluated median nerve somatosensory evoked responses (SER) of magnetoencephalography (MEG) in 27 VNS patients (48 sides) with/without tSSS processing. We classified SER dipoles as 'acceptable' if: (A) the location of the dipole was in the expected location in the central sulcus, and (B) the goodness of fit value (GOF) was greater than 80%. We evaluated (1) the number of sides which produced acceptable dipoles in each dataset (i.e. with/without tSSS processing), and in cases where the both data produced reliable dipoles, (2) compared their GOFs and the 95% confidence volumes (CV) (mm(3)). Statistical differences in the GOF and CV between with/without tSSS conditions were determined by paired t test. Results: Only 11 (23%) responses had reliable dipoles without tSSS processing, while all 48 (100%) had acceptable dipoles under tSSS processing. Additionally, the latter group had significantly higher GOF (increased by 7% on average) and lower CV (mean decrease of 200 mm(3)) than the former (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Processing with tSSS quantitatively improves dipole fitting of known sources in VNS patients. Significance: This algorithm permits satisfactory MEG testing in the relatively commonly encountered epilepsy patient with VNS. (C) 2012 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据