English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Reconstructing EEG sources involves a complex pipeline, with the inverse problem being the most challenging. Multiple inversion algorithms are being continuously developed, aiming to tackle the non-uniqueness of this problem, which has been shown to be partially circumvented by including prior information in the inverse models. Despite a few efforts, there are still current and persistent controversies regarding the inversion algorithm of choice and the optimal set of spatial priors to be included in the inversion models. The use of simultaneous EEG-fMRI data is one approach to tackle this problem. The spatial resolution of fMRI makes fMRI derived spatial priors very convenient for EEG reconstruction, however, only task activation maps and resting-state networks (RSNs) have been explored so far, overlooking the recent, but already accepted, notion that brain networks exhibit dynamic functional connectivity fluctuations. The lack of a systematic comparison between different source reconstruction algorithms, considering potentially more brain-informative priors such as fMRI, motivates the search for better reconstruction models. Using simultaneous EEG-fMRI data, here we compared four different inversion algorithms (minimum norm, MN; low resolution electromagnetic tomography, LORETA; empirical Bayes beamformer, EBB; and multiple sparse priors, MSP) under a Bayesian framework (as implemented in SPM), each with three different sets of priors consisting of: (1) those specific to the algorithm; (2) those specific to the algorithm plus fMRI task activation maps and RSNs; and (3) those specific to the algorithm plus fMRI task activation maps and RSNs and network modules of task-related dFC states estimated from the dFC fluctuations. The quality of the reconstructed EEG sources was quantified in terms of model-based metrics, namely the expectation of the posterior probability  P (model|data) and variance explained of the inversion models, and the overlap/proportion of brain regions known to be involved in the visual perception tasks that the participants were submitted to, and RSN templates, with/within EEG source components. Model-based metrics suggested that model parsimony is preferred, with the combination MSP and priors specific to this algorithm exhibiting the best performance. However, optimal overlap/proportion values were found using EBB and priors specific to this algorithm and fMRI task activation maps and RSNs or MSP and considering all the priors (algorithm priors, fMRI task activation maps and RSNs and dFC state modules), respectively, indicating that fMRI spatial priors, including dFC state modules, might contain useful information to recover EEG source components reflecting neuronal activity of interest. Our main results show that providing fMRI spatial derived priors that reflect the dynamics of the brain might be useful to map neuronal activity more accurately from EEG-fMRI. Furthermore, this work paves the way towards a more informative selection of the optimal EEG source reconstruction approach, which may be critical in future studies.

Optimizing EEG Source Reconstruction with Concurrent fMRI-Derived Spatial Priors