de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Disclaimer Contact us Login
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Poster

Mapping human brain function: a comparison between Variational Bayes Techniques and LCMV Beamformer

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons84112

Ortiz E, Barnes G, Noppeney,  U
Research Group Cognitive Neuroimaging, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

Locator
There are no locators available
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Belardinelli, P., Ortiz E, Barnes G, Noppeney, U., & Preissl, H. (2011). Mapping human brain function: a comparison between Variational Bayes Techniques and LCMV Beamformer. Poster presented at 17th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping (HBM 2011), Québec City, Canada.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-BB8C-3
Abstract
In the last years several hierarchical Bayesian approaches to the MEG/EEG inverse problem have provided for a relevant contribution to the field of MEG/EEG source localization (Friston et al., 2008b; Wipf et al., 2010). While several methods show applicability under specific conditions, none is optimal without prior information. Meaningful results are bound to previously acquired information. In this work we used simulated MEG data to compare three Variational Bayes reconstruction algorithms implemented within the SPM software preprocessing framework (available from http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/): two approaches involving the search for optimal mixtures of anatomically defined priors (Greedy Search (GS) and Automatic Relevance Determination (ARD)) (Friston et al., 2008a) and a third approach using a single empirical prior based on the well established LCMV Beamformer technique (Van Veen et al., 1997), that we denominated Empirical Bayes Beamformer (EBB). Our parameters of interest were: 1. Number of simulated dipoles (1 to 3), 2. Relative position between dipoles (bilaterally symmetric versus random locations) 3. Dipole time-course correlation level (high/low). Each parameter configuration set was tested with 5 levels of SNR (from -30 to +10 dB) and 50 dipole position sets.