Conventional and Reciprocal Approaches to the
Forward and Inverse Problems of
Electroencephalography

The inverse problem of electroencephalography (EEG) is the localization of current sources within the brain using surface potentials on the scalp generated by these sources. An inverse solution typically involves multiple calculations of scalp surface potentials, i.e., the EEG forward problem. To solve the forward problem, models are needed for both the underlying source configuration, the source model, and the surrounding tissues, the head model. This thesis treats two distinct approaches for the resolution of the EEG forward and inverse problems using the boundary-element method (BEM): the conventional approach and the reciprocal approach.  The conventional approach to the forward problem entails calculating the surface potentials starting from source current dipoles. The reciprocal approach, on the other hand, first solves for the electric field at the source dipole locations when the surface electrodes are reciprocally energized with a unit current. A scalar product of this electric field with the source dipoles then yields the surface potentials. The reciprocal approach promises a number of advantages over the conventional approach, including the possibility of increased surface potential accuracy and decreased computational requirements for inverse solutions.                       In this thesis, the BEM equations for the conventional and reciprocal approaches are developed using a common weighted-residual formulation. The numerical implementation of both approaches to the forward problem is described for a single-dipole source model. A three-concentric-spheres head model is used for which analytic solutions are available. Scalp potentials are calculated at either the centroids or the vertices of the BEM discretization elements used. The performance of the conventional and reciprocal approaches to the forward problem is evaluated for radial and tangential dipoles of varying eccentricities and two widely different skull conductivities. We then determine whether the potential advantages of the reciprocal approach suggested by forward problem simulations can be exploited to yield more accurate inverse solutions. Single-dipole inverse solutions are obtained using simplex minimization for both the conventional and reciprocal approaches, each with centroid and vertex options. Again, numerical simulations are performed on a three-concentric-spheres model for radial and tangential dipoles of varying eccentricities. The inverse solution accuracy of both approaches is compared for the two different skull conductivities and their relative sensitivity to skull conductivity errors and noise is assessed. While the conventional vertex approach yields the most accurate forward solutions for a presumably more realistic skull conductivity value, both conventional and reciprocal approaches exhibit large errors in scalp potentials for highly eccentric dipoles. The reciprocal approaches produce the least variation in forward solution accuracy for different skull conductivity values. In terms of single-dipole inverse solutions, conventional and reciprocal approaches demonstrate comparable accuracy. Localization errors are low even for highly eccentric dipoles that produce large errors in scalp potentials on account of the nonlinear nature of the single-dipole inverse solution. Both approaches are also found to be equally robust to skull conductivity errors in the presence of noise. Finally, a more realistic head model is obtained using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from which the scalp, skull, and brain/cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) surfaces are extracted. The two approaches are validated on this type of model using actual somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) recorded following median nerve stimulation in healthy subjects. The inverse solution accuracy of the conventional and reciprocal approaches and their variants, when compared to known anatomical landmarks on MRI, is again evaluated for the two different skull conductivities. Their respective advantages and disadvantages including computational requirements are also assessed.              Once again, conventional and reciprocal approaches produce similarly small dipole position errors. Indeed, position errors for single-dipole inverse solutions are inherently robust to inaccuracies in forward solutions, but dependent on the overlapping activity of other neural sources. Against expectations, the reciprocal approaches do not improve dipole position accuracy when compared to the conventional approaches. However, significantly smaller time and storage requirements are the principal advantages of the reciprocal approaches. This type of localization is potentially useful in the planning of neurosurgical interventions, for example, in patients with refractory focal epilepsy in whom EEG and MRI are often already performed.

Keyphrases: Electroencephalography, Weighted-residual formulation, Boundary-element method, Equivalent current dipole, Forward problem, Reciprocity, Inverse problem, Source localization, Somatosensory evoked potential