Evaluating the influence of anatomical accuracy and electrode positions on EEG forward solutions

Abstract

Generating realistic volume conductor models for forward calculations in electroencephalography (EEG) is not trivial and several factors contribute to the accuracy of such models, two of which are its anatomical accuracy and the accuracy with which electrode positions are known. Here, we investigate effects of anatomical accuracy by comparing forward solutions from SimNIBS, a tool which allows state-of-the-art anatomical modeling, with well-established pipelines in MNE-Python and FieldTrip. We also compare different ways of specifying electrode locations when digitized positions are not available such as transformation of measured positions from standard space and transformation of a manufacturer layout.Substantial effects of anatomical accuracy were seen throughout the entire brain both in terms of field topography and magnitude with SimNIBS generally being more accurate than the pipelines in MNE-Python and FieldTrip. Topographic and magnitude effects were particularly pronounced for MNE-Python which uses a three-layer boundary element method (BEM) model. We attribute these mainly to the coarse representation of the anatomy used in this model, in particular differences in skull and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Effects of electrode specification method were evident in occipital and posterior areas when using a transformed manufacturer layout whereas transforming measured positions from standard space generally resulted in smaller errors.We suggest modeling the anatomy of the volume conductor as accurately possible and we hope to facilitate this by making it easy to export simulations from SimNIBS to MNE-Python and FieldTrip for further analysis. Likewise, if digitized electrode positions are not available, a set of measured positions on a standard head template may be preferable to those specified by the manufacturer.

Keywords

• Electroencephalography
• Forward model
• Head model
• Source localization