Functional connectivity analysis in EEG source space: The choice of method

31Citations
Citations of this article
163Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Functional connectivity (FC) is among the most informative features derived from EEG. However, the most straightforward sensor-space analysis of FC is unreliable owing to volume conductance effects. An alternative-source-space analysis of FC-is optimal for high- and mid-density EEG (hdEEG, mdEEG); however, it is questionable for widely used low-density EEG (ldEEG) because of inadequate surface sampling. Here, using simulations, we investigate the performance of the two source FC methods, the inverse-based source FC (ISFC) and the cortical partial coherence (CPC). To examine the effects of localization errors of the inverse method on the FC estimation, we simulated an oscillatory source with varying locations and SNRs. To compare the FC estimations by the two methods, we simulated two synchronized sources with varying between-source distance and SNR. The simulations were implemented for hdEEG, mdEEG, and ldEEG. We showed that the performance of both methods deteriorates for deep sources owing to their inaccurate localization and smoothing. The accuracy of both methods improves with the increasing between-source distance. The best ISFC performance was achieved using hd/mdEEG, while the best CPC performance was observed with ldEEG. In conclusion, with hdEEG, ISFC outperforms CPC and therefore should be the preferred method. In the studies based on ldEEG, the CPC is a method of choice.

Figures

  • Fig 1. Methods for source FC estimation and EEG simulations. A. The block diagram represents principal steps for the source FC analysis by means of the ISFC (solid arrows) and CPC (dotted arrows) methods. Arrows indicate the steps of the analyses; the numbers in brackets refer to the paragraphs of the Method section describing these steps. The gray circles refer to the steps with more than one input. The gray rectangles represent the input/output of analysis steps. B. The procedures for one- and two-source EEG simulations are presented. First, one and two oscillatory time series were generated for one and two source simulations, respectively (left). Then, source current densities were generated by placing these signals in the source grid and adding the first level noise (middle). Finally, the source current densities were multiplied by the lead field matrix to generate the sensorlevel signal, to which the second-level noise was added. C. Sensor layouts with 110, 61, and 18 sensors (in red) that were used in the simulations.
  • Fig 2. Localization errors of WMN method. The error distance (ED) and error standard deviation (ESD) for each sensor array is presented with a heat map as a function of SNR and source distances. The color bars on the right show the ED and ESD scales.
  • Fig 3. Source localization error for deep sources using WMN inverse solution. The original source power map before forward modeling (top row), and the reconstructed source power map after inverse modeling (bottom row) are presented for one-source simulation with 111-sensor EEG array and SNR = 4 dB. The source power maps are rendered on the MNI average brain and presented in four views (the posterior and top views of the whole brain and the mid-sagittal views of the right and left hemispheres). In this simulation, S1 was originally centered in the cuneus, at a distance of 45 mm from the scalp surface. The reconstructed current sources were localized more superficially in the superior occipital gyrus at a distance of 25 mm between the source with maximum power and the scalp surface. The color bar on the right shows the normalized power scale.
  • Fig 4. Functional connectivity error (FCE) of CPC and ISFC methods. The FCE is presented with a heat map as a function of SNR and between-source distances for each sensor array. The color bar on the right shows the FCE scale.
  • Fig 5. Topography of functional connectivity error (FCE) for CPC and ISFC methods. The FCE maps for the three sensor arrays at SNR = 0 dB (A) and SNR = 10 dB (B) are presented. The FCE for the S2 locations that cover the entire source grid (except the vicinity of S1 shown in gray) is rendered on the average MNI brain and presented in three views (the left hemisphere, the top view of the whole brain, and the right hemisphere). The color bars indicate the scaling of FCE.
  • Fig 6. Functional connectivity error (FCE) of ISFC method as a function of source mislocalization. The scatterplots of FCE as a function of ED are shown for the three sensor arrays at three levels of SNR. Each data point (a circle) on the scatterplots represents the FCE and ED of a source. The regression of the FCE as a dependent variable on the ED as an explanatory variable is shown with red lines. For all R-squared (R2) values, P < 0.01.

References Powered by Scopus

Neuronal olscillations in cortical networks

4870Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The brainweb: Phase synchronization and large-scale integration

3787Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Electric Fields of the Brain: The neurophysics of EEG

2844Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Estimating EEG Source Dipole Orientation Based on Singular-value Decomposition for Connectivity Analysis

46Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The functional characterization of callosal connections

45Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A survey of brain network analysis by electroencephalographic signals

38Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Barzegaran, E., & Knyazeva, M. G. (2017). Functional connectivity analysis in EEG source space: The choice of method. PLoS ONE, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181105

Readers over time

‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25015304560

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 72

65%

Researcher 21

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 15

14%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Neuroscience 44

45%

Engineering 31

32%

Psychology 14

14%

Computer Science 9

9%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0