Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparing the performance of beamformer algorithms in estimating orientations of neural sources.
Buschermöhle, Yvonne; Höltershinken, Malte B; Erdbrügger, Tim; Radecke, Jan-Ole; Sprenger, Andreas; Schneider, Till R; Lencer, Rebekka; Gross, Joachim; Wolters, Carsten H.
Afiliação
  • Buschermöhle Y; Institute for Biomagnetism and Biosignalanalysis, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
  • Höltershinken MB; Otto Creutzfeldt Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
  • Erdbrügger T; Institute for Biomagnetism and Biosignalanalysis, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
  • Radecke JO; Institute for Analysis and Numerics, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
  • Sprenger A; Institute for Biomagnetism and Biosignalanalysis, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
  • Schneider TR; Institute for Analysis and Numerics, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
  • Lencer R; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, 23562 Lübeck, Germany.
  • Gross J; Center of Brain, Behavior and Metabolism, University of Lübeck, 23562 Lübeck, Germany.
  • Wolters CH; Center of Brain, Behavior and Metabolism, University of Lübeck, 23562 Lübeck, Germany.
iScience ; 27(3): 109150, 2024 Mar 15.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38420593
ABSTRACT
The efficacy of transcranial electric stimulation (tES) to effectively modulate neuronal activity depends critically on the spatial orientation of the targeted neuronal population. Therefore, precise estimation of target orientation is of utmost importance. Different beamforming algorithms provide orientation estimates; however, a systematic analysis of their performance is still lacking. For fixed brain locations, EEG and MEG data from sources with randomized orientations were simulated. The orientation was then estimated (1) with an EEG and (2) with a combined EEG-MEG approach. Three commonly used beamformer algorithms were evaluated with respect to their abilities to estimate the correct orientation Unit-Gain (UG), Unit-Noise-Gain (UNG), and Array-Gain (AG) beamformer. Performance depends on the signal-to-noise ratios for the modalities and on the chosen beamformer. Overall, the UNG and AG beamformers appear as the most reliable. With increasing noise, the UG estimate converges to a vector determined by the leadfield, thus leading to insufficient orientation estimates.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Alemanha

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Alemanha