Comparison of beamformer implementations for MEG source localization

Beamformers are applied for estimating spatiotemporal characteristics of neuronal sources underlying measured MEG/EEG signals. Several MEG analysis toolboxes include an implementation of a linearly constrained minimum-variance (LCMV) beamformer. However, differences in implementations and in their results complicate the selection and application of beamformers and may hinder their wider adoption in research and clinical use. Additionally, combinations of different MEG sensor types (such as magnetometers and planar gradiometers) and application of preprocessing methods for interference suppression, such as signal space separation (SSS), can affect the results in different ways for different implementations. So far, a systematic evaluation of the different implementations has not been performed. Here, we compared the localization performance of the LCMV beamformer pipelines in four widely used open-source toolboxes (FieldTrip, SPM12, Brainstorm, and MNE-Python) using datasets both with and without SSS interference suppression.We analyzed MEG data that were i) simulated, ii) recorded from a static and moving phantom, and iii) recorded from a healthy volunteer receiving auditory, visual, and somatosensory stimulation. We also investigated the effects of SSS and the combination of the magnetometer and gradiometer signals. We quantified how localization error and point-spread volume vary with SNR in all four toolboxes.When applied carefully to MEG data with a typical SNR (3–15 dB), all four toolboxes localized the sources reliably; however, they differed in their sensitivity to preprocessing parameters. As expected, localizations were highly unreliable at very low SNR, but we found high localization error also at very high SNRs. We also found that the SNR improvement offered by SSS led to more accurate localization.

Magnetoencephalographic Source Localization of the Eye Area of the Motor Homunculus

A patient with intractable epilepsy, previous right frontal resection, and active vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) developed new onset quasi-continuous twitching around the left eye. Electroencephalography showed no correlate to the orbicularis oculi twitches apart from myographic potentials at the left supraorbital and anterior frontal electrodes. Magnetoencephalography was performed using spatiotemporal signal space separation to suppress magnetic artifacts associated with the VNS apparatus. Magnetoencephalographic source imaging performed on the data back-averaged from the left supraorbital myographic potentials revealed an intrasulcal cortical generator situated in the posterior wall of the right precentral gyrus representing the eye area of the motor homunculus.

Signal Space Separation Method for a Biomagnetic Sensor Array Arranged on a Flat Plane for Magnetocardiographic Applications: A Computer Simulation Study

Although the signal space separation (SSS) method can successfully suppress interference/artifacts overlapped onto magnetoencephalography (MEG) signals, the method is considered inapplicable to data from nonhelmet-type sensor arrays, such as the flat sensor arrays typically used in magnetocardiographic (MCG) applications. This paper shows that the SSS method is still effective for data measured from a (nonhelmet-type) array of sensors arranged on a flat plane. By using computer simulations, it is shown that the optimum location of the origin can be determined by assessing the dependence of signal and noise gains of the SSS extractor on the origin location. The optimum values of the parameters LC and LD, which, respectively, indicate the truncation values of the multipole-order ℓ of the internal and external subspaces, are also determined by evaluating dependences of the signal, noise, and interference gains (i.e., the shield factor) on these parameters. The shield factor exceeds 104 for interferences originating from fairly distant sources. However, the shield factor drops to approximately 100 when calibration errors of 0.1% exist and to 30 when calibration errors of 1% exist. The shielding capability can be significantly improved using vector sensors, which measure the x, y, and z components of the magnetic field. With 1% calibration errors, a vector sensor array still maintains a shield factor of approximately 500. It is found that the SSS application to data from flat sensor arrays causes a distortion in the signal magnetic field, but it is shown that the distortion can be corrected by using an SSS-modified sensor lead field in the voxel space analysis.

The Impact of the Choice of Magnetometers and Gradiometers in Source Reconstruction after Signal Space Separation

Background: Modern MEG devices include 102 sensor triplets containing one magnetometer and two planar gradiometers. The first processing step is often a signal space separation (SSS), which provides a powerful noise reduction. A question commonly raised by researchers and reviewers is which data should be employed in source reconstruction: (1) magnetometers only, (2) gradiometers only, (3) magnetometers and gradiometers together. The MEG community is currently divided about the proper answer and strong arguments in favor and against these three approaches often expressed. Methods: First, we provide theoretical evidence that both gradiometers and magnetometers contain the same information after SSS, and argue that they both result from the backprojection of the same SSS components. Then, we compare beamforming source reconstructions from magnetometers and gradiometers in real MEG recordings before and after SSS. Results: Without SSS, the correlation between source time series extracted from magnetometers and gradiometers was high, with Pearson correlation coefficient r=0.5-0.8. After SSS, these correlation values increased dramatically, reaching over 0.90 across all cortical areas. Conclusions: After SSS, almost identical source reconstructions (r>0.9) can be obtained with magnetometers and gradiometers, as long as regularization is selected appropriately to account for the different properties in magnetometers and gradiometers covariance matrices.

Artifacts

This chapter focuses on different types of biological and nonbiological artifacts in MEG and EEG recordings, and discusses methods for their recognition and removal. Examples are given of various physiological artifacts, including eye movements, eyeblinks, saccades, muscle, and cardiac activity. Nonbiological artifacts, such as power-line noise, are also demonstrated. Some examples are given to illustrate how these unwanted signals can be identified and removed from MEG and EEG signals with methods such as independent component analysis (as applied to EEG data) and temporal signal-space separation (applied to MEG data). However, prevention of artifacts is always preferable to removing or compensating for them post hoc during data analysis. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how to ensure that signals are emanating from the brain and not from other sources.

Comparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Study

We here compared results achieved by applying popular methods for reducing artifacts in magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) recordings of the auditory evoked Mismatch Negativity (MMN) responses in healthy adult subjects. We compared the Signal Space Separation (SSS) and temporal SSS (tSSS) methods for reducing noise from external and nearby sources. Our results showed that tSSS reduces the interference level more reliably than plain SSS, particularly for MEG gradiometers, also for healthy subjects not wearing strongly interfering magnetic material. Therefore, tSSS is recommended over SSS. Furthermore, we found that better artifact correction is achieved by applying Independent Component Analysis (ICA) in comparison to Signal Space Projection (SSP). Although SSP reduces the baseline noise level more than ICA, SSP also significantly reduces the signal—slightly more than it reduces the artifacts interfering with the signal. However, ICA also adds noise, or correction errors, to the waveform when the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the original data is relatively low—in particular to EEG and to MEG magnetometer data. In conclusion, ICA is recommended over SSP, but one should be careful when applying ICA to reduce artifacts on neurophysiological data with relatively low SNR.