2020
DOI: 10.1109/tmi.2019.2932290
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robust Empirical Bayesian Reconstruction of Distributed Sources for Electromagnetic Brain Imaging

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
28
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
4
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the algorithms presented in Sections III-A1-III-A3 achieve satisfactory performance in terms of computational complexity, their reconstruction performance degrades significantly in low-SNR regimes. This behavior has been theoretically shown in [22, Section VI-E] and has also been confirmed in several simulation studies [23], [24].…”
Section: Lowsnr-brain Source Imaging (Lowsnr-bsi)supporting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although the algorithms presented in Sections III-A1-III-A3 achieve satisfactory performance in terms of computational complexity, their reconstruction performance degrades significantly in low-SNR regimes. This behavior has been theoretically shown in [22, Section VI-E] and has also been confirmed in several simulation studies [23], [24].…”
Section: Lowsnr-brain Source Imaging (Lowsnr-bsi)supporting
confidence: 82%
“…This holds in particular for the reconstruction of ongoing as well as induced (non-phase-locked) oscillatory activity, where no averaging can be performed prior to source reconstruction. Current SBL algorithms may suffer from reduced performance in such low-SNR regimes [22]- [24]. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel MM algorithm for EEG/MEG source imaging, which employs a bound on the SBL cost function that is particularly suitable for low-SNR regimes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To evaluate the performance of localization results, we use free-response receiver operator characteristics (FROC) which shows the probability for detection of a true source in an image versus the expected value of the number of false positive detections per image [4,17,15,18]. Based on the FROC, we compute an A metric [19,20] which is an estimate of the area under the FROC curve for each simulation. If the area under the FROC curve is large, then the hit rate is higher compared to the false positive rate.…”
Section: Quantifying Algorithm Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The false rate (F R ) is defined by dividing the number of potential false positive voxels by the total number of false voxels for each simulation. The details of the A metric calculation can be referred to in our previous paper [20]. We then calculate the correlation coefficient between the seed and estimated source time courses for each hit, which is used to determine the accuracy of the time course reconstructions and denoted as R .…”
Section: Quantifying Algorithm Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation