2016
DOI: 10.1007/s10548-016-0482-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Role of Skull Modeling in EEG Source Imaging for Patients with Refractory Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

Abstract: We investigated the influence of different skull modeling approaches on EEG source imaging (ESI), using data of six patients with refractory temporal lobe epilepsy who later underwent successful epilepsy surgery. Four realistic head models with different skull compartments, based on finite difference methods, were constructed for each patient: (i) Three models had skulls with compact and spongy bone compartments as well as air-filled cavities, segmented from either computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We did model the air cavities/sinuses in the patients because not modeling them could introduce focal localization errors in the frontal and temporal regions . The skull was modeled as a single isotropic layer and not anisotropic or as 3 layers, because we recently showed that more complex skull modeling approaches did not lead to significant differences in the localization of the irritative zone from clinical EEG data recorded with low spatial sampling . We used a skull conductivity of 0.0105 S/m according to Dannhauer et al., who calculated the optimal isotropic conductivity on the basis of the conductivity measurements of the spongy and hard bone of Ahktari et al .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We did model the air cavities/sinuses in the patients because not modeling them could introduce focal localization errors in the frontal and temporal regions . The skull was modeled as a single isotropic layer and not anisotropic or as 3 layers, because we recently showed that more complex skull modeling approaches did not lead to significant differences in the localization of the irritative zone from clinical EEG data recorded with low spatial sampling . We used a skull conductivity of 0.0105 S/m according to Dannhauer et al., who calculated the optimal isotropic conductivity on the basis of the conductivity measurements of the spongy and hard bone of Ahktari et al .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18 The skull was modeled as a single isotropic layer and not anisotropic or as 3 layers, because we recently showed that more complex skull modeling approaches did not lead to significant differences in the localization of the irritative zone from clinical EEG data recorded with low spatial sampling. 19 We used a skull conductivity of 0.0105 S/m according to Dannhauer et al, 20 who calculated the optimal isotropic conductivity on the basis of the conductivity measurements of the spongy and hard bone of Ahktari et al 21 It must be noted that these conductivity values were measured in dead bone tissue. Hoekema et al 22 performed measurements in living skull fragments during bone flap surgery and showed that the conductivity values ranged from 0.032 S/m to 0.080 S/m and that they vary with age.…”
Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the selection and preprocessing of an ictal epoch as described in Section 2.3 , ESI was applied. For this purpose, realistic finite difference method (FDM) head models consisting of six different tissues (air (0 S/m), scalp (0.33 S/m), skull (0.0132 S/m), cerebrospinal fluid (1.79 S/m), grey matter (0.33 S/m) and white matter (0.14 S/m)) were constructed based on the individual patient's pre-operative T1-weighted MR image ( Montes-Restrepo et al, 2016 , Strobbe et al, 2016 ). The solution space was constructed as a uniform grid in the segmented grey matter, excluding the cerebellum, with a spacing of 4 mm.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, the use of individually defined forward models can be mandatory in several medical applications that demand a proper assisted diagnosis and adequate interpretation of patient states from the involved neurophysiological data [18][19][20]. In this regard, the combination of both approaches to enhance the model of brain structure differently implies inter-and intraobserver variability, not always decreasing enough the impact of uncertainty in the inherent geometrical complexities.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%