用电、磁和电磁组合模型定位癫痫病灶

V. Diekmann , W. Becker , R. Jürgens , B. Grözinger , B. Kleiser , H.P. Richter , K.H. Wollinsky
{"title":"用电、磁和电磁组合模型定位癫痫病灶","authors":"V. Diekmann ,&nbsp;W. Becker ,&nbsp;R. Jürgens ,&nbsp;B. Grözinger ,&nbsp;B. Kleiser ,&nbsp;H.P. Richter ,&nbsp;K.H. Wollinsky","doi":"10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00142-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We compare the localisation of epileptic foci by means of (1) EEG, (2) magnetoencephalography (MEG) and (3) combined EEG/MEG data in a group of patients suffering from pharmaco-resistant focal epilepsy. Individual epileptic events were localised by means of a moving dipole model in a 4-shell spherical head approximation. A patient's epileptic activity was summarised by calculating the spatial density distribution (DD) of all localised events, and the centre of gravity of DD was considered the most likely locus of seizure generation. To verify these loci a subgroup of 6 patients was selected, in which seizures could be related to a clearly identifiable lesion in MRI. On average, the combined EEG/MEG approach resulted in the smallest error (1.8 cm distance between calculated locus and the nearest lesion border); using only MEG yielded the largest error (2.4 cm), while EEG resulted in an intermediate value (2.2 cm). In the individual patients, EEG/MEG would also rank intermediate, but never worst. In summary, combining EEG/MEG appears to be a more robust approach to localisation than using only EEG or only MEG. Finally, we also report on the use of the barbiturate methohexital as a safe method of increasing the number of spike events during an EEG/MEG recording session.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72888,"journal":{"name":"Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology","volume":"106 4","pages":"Pages 297-313"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00142-9","citationCount":"68","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Localisation of epileptic foci with electric, magnetic and combined electromagnetic models\",\"authors\":\"V. Diekmann ,&nbsp;W. Becker ,&nbsp;R. Jürgens ,&nbsp;B. Grözinger ,&nbsp;B. Kleiser ,&nbsp;H.P. Richter ,&nbsp;K.H. Wollinsky\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00142-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>We compare the localisation of epileptic foci by means of (1) EEG, (2) magnetoencephalography (MEG) and (3) combined EEG/MEG data in a group of patients suffering from pharmaco-resistant focal epilepsy. Individual epileptic events were localised by means of a moving dipole model in a 4-shell spherical head approximation. A patient's epileptic activity was summarised by calculating the spatial density distribution (DD) of all localised events, and the centre of gravity of DD was considered the most likely locus of seizure generation. To verify these loci a subgroup of 6 patients was selected, in which seizures could be related to a clearly identifiable lesion in MRI. On average, the combined EEG/MEG approach resulted in the smallest error (1.8 cm distance between calculated locus and the nearest lesion border); using only MEG yielded the largest error (2.4 cm), while EEG resulted in an intermediate value (2.2 cm). In the individual patients, EEG/MEG would also rank intermediate, but never worst. In summary, combining EEG/MEG appears to be a more robust approach to localisation than using only EEG or only MEG. Finally, we also report on the use of the barbiturate methohexital as a safe method of increasing the number of spike events during an EEG/MEG recording session.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology\",\"volume\":\"106 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 297-313\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00142-9\",\"citationCount\":\"68\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013469497001429\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013469497001429","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 68

摘要

我们通过(1)脑电图(EEG)、(2)脑磁图(MEG)和(3)脑电图/脑磁图联合数据对一组耐药局灶性癫痫患者的癫痫病灶定位进行比较。个体癫痫事件的定位是通过一个移动偶极子模型在一个4壳球头近似。通过计算所有局部事件的空间密度分布(DD)来总结患者的癫痫活动,DD的重心被认为是最可能发生癫痫发作的位置。为了验证这些基因座,我们选择了6例患者的亚组,其中癫痫发作可能与MRI中明确可识别的病变有关。平均而言,EEG/MEG联合方法的误差最小(计算出的病灶位置与最近病灶边界的距离为1.8 cm);仅使用MEG产生最大误差(2.4 cm),而EEG产生中间值(2.2 cm)。在个别患者中,EEG/MEG也会排名中等,但绝不会最差。综上所述,结合EEG/MEG似乎比仅使用EEG或MEG更可靠的定位方法。最后,我们还报道了使用巴比妥类甲氧己酮作为增加EEG/MEG记录过程中尖峰事件数量的安全方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Localisation of epileptic foci with electric, magnetic and combined electromagnetic models

We compare the localisation of epileptic foci by means of (1) EEG, (2) magnetoencephalography (MEG) and (3) combined EEG/MEG data in a group of patients suffering from pharmaco-resistant focal epilepsy. Individual epileptic events were localised by means of a moving dipole model in a 4-shell spherical head approximation. A patient's epileptic activity was summarised by calculating the spatial density distribution (DD) of all localised events, and the centre of gravity of DD was considered the most likely locus of seizure generation. To verify these loci a subgroup of 6 patients was selected, in which seizures could be related to a clearly identifiable lesion in MRI. On average, the combined EEG/MEG approach resulted in the smallest error (1.8 cm distance between calculated locus and the nearest lesion border); using only MEG yielded the largest error (2.4 cm), while EEG resulted in an intermediate value (2.2 cm). In the individual patients, EEG/MEG would also rank intermediate, but never worst. In summary, combining EEG/MEG appears to be a more robust approach to localisation than using only EEG or only MEG. Finally, we also report on the use of the barbiturate methohexital as a safe method of increasing the number of spike events during an EEG/MEG recording session.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信