Evaluation of skull conductivity using SCALE head tissue conductivity estimation using EEG

How to assess the accuracy of volume conduction models? A validation study with stereotactic EEG data

Introduction

Volume conduction models of the human head are used in various neuroscience fields, such as for source reconstruction in EEG and MEG, and for modeling the effects of brain stimulation. Numerous studies have quantified the accuracy and sensitivity of volume conduction models by analyzing the effects of the geometrical and electrical features of the head model, the sensor model, the source model, and the numerical method. Most studies are based on simulations as it is hard to obtain sufficiently detailed measurements to compare to models. The recording of stereotactic EEG during electric stimulation mapping provides an opportunity for such empirical validation.

Methods

In the study presented here, we used the potential distribution of volume-conducted artifacts that are due to cortical stimulation to evaluate the accuracy of finite element method (FEM) volume conduction models. We adopted a widely used strategy for numerical comparison, i.e., we fixed the geometrical description of the head model and the mathematical method to perform simulations, and we gradually altered the head models, by increasing the level of detail of the conductivity profile. We compared the simulated potentials at different levels of refinement with the measured potentials in three epilepsy patients.

Results

Our results show that increasing the level of detail of the volume conduction head model only marginally improves the accuracy of the simulated potentials when compared to in-vivo sEEG measurements. The mismatch between measured and simulated potentials is, throughout all patients and models, maximally 40 microvolts (i.e., 10% relative error) in 80% of the stimulation-recording combination pairs and it is modulated by the distance between recording and stimulating electrodes.

Discussion

Our study suggests that commonly used strategies used to validate volume conduction models based solely on simulations might give an overly optimistic idea about volume conduction model accuracy. We recommend more empirical validations to be performed to identify those factors in volume conduction models that have the highest impact on the accuracy of simulated potentials. We share the dataset to allow researchers to further investigate the mismatch between measurements and FEM models and to contribute to improving volume conduction models.

Comparison of EEG Source Localization Using Simplified and Anatomically Accurate Head Models in Younger and Older Adults

Accuracy of electroencephalography (EEG) source localization relies on the volume conduction head model. A previous analysis of young adults has shown that simplified head models have larger source localization errors when compared with head models based on magnetic resonance images (MRIs). As obtaining individual MRIs may not always be feasible, researchers often use generic head models based on template MRIs. It is unclear how much error would be introduced using template MRI head models in older adults that likely have differences in brain structure compared to young adults. The primary goal of this study was to determine the error caused by using simplified head models without individual-specific MRIs in both younger and older adults. We collected high-density EEG during uneven terrain walking and motor imagery for 15 younger (22±3 years) and 21 older adults (74±5 years) and obtained [Formula: see text]-weighted MRI for each individual. We performed equivalent dipole fitting after independent component analysis to obtain brain source locations using four forward modeling pipelines with increasing complexity. These pipelines included: 1) a generic head model with template electrode positions or 2) digitized electrode positions, 3) individual-specific head models with digitized electrode positions using simplified tissue segmentation, or 4) anatomically accurate segmentation. We found that when compared to the anatomically accurate individual-specific head models, performing dipole fitting with generic head models led to similar source localization discrepancies (up to 2 cm) for younger and older adults. Co-registering digitized electrode locations to the generic head models reduced source localization discrepancies by  ∼  6 mm. Additionally, we found that source depths generally increased with skull conductivity for the representative young adult but not as much for the older adult. Our results can help inform a more accurate interpretation of brain areas in EEG studies when individual MRIs are unavailable.