Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Clinical Neurophysiology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/clinph

Evaluation of neural activity by magnetospinography with 3D sensors
Kyohei Sakaki a,1, Yuko Hoshino b,1, Shigenori Kawabata a,b,⇑, Yoshiaki Adachi c, Taishi Watanabe d,Kensuke Sekihara b, Senichi Ishii a, Masaki Tomori a, Shoji Tomizawa a, Mitsuhiro Enomoto a,
Atsushi Okawa aaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan
Department of Advanced Technology in Medicine, Graduate School of Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan
Applied Electronics Laboratory, Kanazawa Institute of Technology, Kanazawa-shi, Ishikawa 920-1331, Japand
Healthcare Business Group, RICOH COMPANY, LTD., 2-3-10 Kandasurugadai Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0062, Japanbca r t i c l e

i n f oArticle history:
Accepted 15 February 2020
Available online 19 March 2020
Keywords:
Magnetospinography
Magnetoneurography
Neuromagnetography
Spinal cord evoked magnetic field
Spinal cord evoked potential
Lumbar spinal canal
SQUID
Spatial filter

h i g h l i g h t s
 Magnetospinography with 3D sensors visualizes neural activity at depolarization sites.
 Action currents can be reconstructed from spinal cord evoked magnetic fields.
 Reconstructed currents at depolarization sites can localize spinal cord lesions.

a b s t r a c t
Objective: Magnetospinography (MSG) has been developed for clinical application and is expected to be anovel neurophysiological examination. Here, we used an MSG system with sensors positioned in threeorthogonal directions to record lumbar canal evoked magnetic fields (LCEFs) in response to peripheral
nerve stimulation and to evaluate methods for localizing spinal cord lesions.
Methods: LCEFs from the lumbar area of seven rabbits were recorded by the MSG system in response toelectrical stimulation of a sciatic nerve. LCEFs and lumbar canal evoked potentials (LCEPs) were measured
before and after spinal cord compression induced by a balloon catheter. The lesion positions were estimated using LCEPs and computationally reconstructed currents corresponding to the depolarization site.
Results: LCEFs were recorded in all rabbits and neural activity in the lumbar spinal cord could be visualized in the form of a magnetic contour map and reconstructed current map. The position of the spinal
cord lesion could be estimated by the LCEPs and reconstructed currents at the depolarization site.
Conclusions: MSG can visualize neural activity in the spinal cord and localize the lesion site.
Significance: MSG enables noninvasive assessment of neural activity in the spinal canal using currents at
depolarization sites reconstructed from LCEFs.
Ó 2020 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Abbreviations: CV, conduction velocity; LCEF, lumbar canal evoked magnetic
field; LCEP, lumbar canal evoked potential; MEG, magnetoencephalography; MNG,
magnetoneurography; MSG, magnetospinography; RENS, recursive null-steering;
SQUID, superconducting quantum interference device; SD, standard deviation.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Advanced Technology in Medicine,
Graduate School of Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyoku, Tokyo 113-8510, Japan.
E-mail addresses: hoshino.atm@tmd.ac.jp (Y. Hoshino), kawabata.orth@tmd.ac.
jp (S. Kawabata), taishi.watanabe@jp.ricoh.com (T. Watanabe), k-sekihara@nifty.
com (K. Sekihara), enomoto.orth@tmd.ac.jp (M. Enomoto), okawa.orth@tmd.ac.jp (Atsushi Okawa).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.

Multimodal assessment, including imaging techniques andelectrophysiological examinations, is required for the diagnosis of
nervous system diseases. Particularly for the spinal cord, functional
examination with high temporal and spatial resolution is necessary, given that this region contains many different pathways ina relatively small area.
Electrophysiological examination of the spinal cord has beenused not just for diagnosis, but also for intraoperative monitoringand preoperative assessment. However, electrophysiologicalrecording is not always suitable for examining deep and complex
structures such as the spinal cord, spinal nerve, and brachialhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2020.02.025
1388-2457/Ó 2020 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

plexus. Potentials recorded on the skin surface have relatively
small amplitudes and are affected by the conductivity of the tissues surrounding the spinal cord (Kakigi et al., 1982; Yamada
et al., 1982; Yamada, 2000). Furthermore, electrophysiologicalrecording from the skin surface such as via somatosensory evoked
potentials requires many electrodes to scan a wide area. The use oflumbar canal evoked potentials (LCEPs) recorded with an epiduralelectrode is one method for obtaining clearer and larger signals.
Although helpful for intraoperative and preoperative examinations, insertion of an epidural electrode into the spinal canal has
risks. Therefore, noninvasive but accurate examinations are
required for functional assessment of the spinal cord.
Magnetoneurography (MNG) has been developed as one suchmethod. When a nerve is electrically stimulated, intra-axonal currents generate evoked magnetic fields according to Biot-Savart law
or Ampère’s law (Supplementary Fig. S1a, b). Volume currents andcorresponding magnetic fields are not generated if a nerve or a current source is not located in a conductor. However, when a nerve islocated in a conductor, such as a biological body, depolarization
generates volume currents that flow into and out of the nerve;such currents also produce magnetic fields (Supplementary
Fig. S1c). The calculation of these complicated magnetic fields ina homogeneous conductor has been reported by Sarvas (1987)
and Stenroos and Sarvas (2012). Such biomagnetic fields are soweak as to be nine orders of magnitude smaller than the geomagnetic field (Wijesinghe, 2010) but can be detected in a magneticallyshielded room using sensitive magnetic sensors.
MNG has some advantages over electrophysiological examination. First, action currents at any point in the scanned area can becomputationally reconstructed from recorded magnetic fields, and
MNG does not require large electrode arrays to be placed on the skinsurface. Second, the magnetic field is not affected by the conductivity of the surrounding tissue. Therefore, action currents can be more
precisely reconstructed from evoked magnetic fields than evoked
potentials. Although magnetoencephalography (MEG) and magnetocardiography are already available for clinical use, magnetospinography (MSG) is now progressing to clinical application. The delay inthe clinical application of MSG is mainly due to the features of the
spinal cord. The evoked magnetic fields in the spinal cord are about
one-tenth smaller than those of MEG and contain signals of different
origins, including synaptic activities and propagating action currents. Therefore, signal localization in MSG is more difficult, and
MSG needs a higher sampling rate and sensitivity.
We have reported neural activities in peripheral nerves and thespinal cord visualized by MNG and MSG in animals and humans,
the propagation of lumbar canal evoked magnetic fields (LCEFs)(Hoshino et al., 2005; Kawabata et al., 2002; Ohkubo et al., 2003;
Sumiya et al, 2017; Tomori et al., 2010), which are evoked magnetic fields in the lumbar spinal cord and cauda equina (Ishii
et al., 2012; Tomizawa et al, 2008), and the physiological characteristics of action currents and magnetic fields in isolated nerves(Fukuoka et al., 2002, 2004). We have developed a superconducting
quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer that simultaneously detects three directional components of magnetic fields, aswell as improved artifact reduction methods and signal processing
for better signal localization. Although we have already recorded
LCEFs in human subjects (Sumiya et al., 2017), detailed neuromagnetic fields at the site of conduction blocks still need to be evaluated for the future clinical use of MSG. In our previous report,
LCEFs at the site of cervical spinal cord compression in animals
were recorded from the skin surface in response to spinal cord
stimulation with an epidural catheter electrode (Tomori et al.,2010). In this report, we present LCEFs at compression sites ofthe lumbar spinal cord and cauda equina using less invasive sciatic
nerve stimulation. In addition, we show that the lesion site was
localized by the LCEFs or reconstructed currents at the depolariza-

1253

tion site. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness of MSG with 3D sensors for localizing lesion sites in the
lumbar spinal canal and to demonstrate the feasibility of applying
MSG in the clinical setting.
2. Methods
2.1. Animals and general measurement settings
Seven Japanese white rabbits (3.0–3.5 kg body weight) wereused. First, the rabbits were anesthetized with ketamine chloride(25 mg/kg, intramuscular) and medetomidine chloride (0.1 mg/
kg, subcutaneous). Intravenous ketamine chloride (20 mg/kg/h),
medetomidine chloride (0.1 mg/kg/h), and vecuronium bromide(0.3 mg/kg/h) were administered to maintain anesthesia and muscle relaxation. Artificial ventilation was performed through a tracheotomy tube and electrocardiograms were continuously
monitored during the procedure. LCEFs and LCEPs in response to
sciatic nerve stimulation were respectively recorded before andafter the spinal cord compression. After all recordings were finished, the animals were euthanized by intravenous infusion of pentobarbital (120 mg/kg). All procedures in this study were approvedby the Animal Care Committee of Tokyo Medical and Dental
University and carried out in accordance with EU Directive
2010/63/EU for animal experiments.
The correspondence of LCEFs and LCEPs was analyzed, andaction currents were computationally reconstructed from LCEFs.
In this study, we defined action currents as currents generated
by nerve excitation, including intra-axonal currents and volume
currents. In addition, the positions of the spinal cord compression
were estimated by the LCEPs and reconstructed currents generated
at the depolarization site.
2.2. Electrical stimulation
A unilateral sciatic nerve was exposed at the popliteal fossa andelectrically stimulated (60 Hz; monophasic square waves; 0.03 ms
width; 5–10 mA constant current, above the motor threshold)using a bipolar electrode. We used high-frequency stimulation to
suppress synaptic activity. Electrical stimulation and recording of
LCEPs were done by the MEB2200 electromyogram/evoked potential measuring system (Nihon Koden, Tokyo, Japan). For measurement of LCEFs, the nerves were electrically stimulated in thesame manner.
2.3. Measurement of LCEPs
A five-pole catheter electrode (15-mm intervals; Unique Medical, Tokyo, Japan) was inserted into the lumbar epidural space
through a 3-mm-diameter hole made at the caudal end of thesacrum (Fig. 1). The LCEPs before and after the spinal cord
compression were recorded from the five poles of the epiduralelectrode at a sampling rate of 10 kHz with 100 Hz to 5 kHz bandpass filtering. A reference electrode was placed at the ear. An average of 50 to 100 responses was analyzed at each point. During the
spinal cord compression procedure, LCEPs were continuously
recorded to confirm that the peak amplitude decreased to lower
than 50%. The position of the catheter electrode was obtained by
X-ray imaging (Fig. 2).
2.4. Measurement of LCEFs
All recordings were performed in a magnetically shielded room
using the MSG system, a 120-channel SQUID biomagnetometersystem developed by the Applied Electronics Laboratory, Kana-

1254

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

X
Y
Z
recording areaof SCEFs
epidural electroderecorder for SCEPs+ stimulator
Fig. 1. Rabbits and measurement setting. After a rabbit was anesthetized, a fivepole catheter electrode was inserted into the lumbar epidural space through a 3mm-diameter hole made at the caudal end of the sacrum. A unilateral sciatic nerve
was electrically stimulated, and LCEPs were recorded from the catheter electrode.
The shaded square represents the recording area of LCEFs. The coordinates were set
as illustrated. LCEP: lumbar canal evoked potential; LCEF: lumbar canal evokedmagnetic field.

one another to simultaneously detect three directional components of magnetic fields (Fig. 3b). The X coil is defined to detectmagnetic fields in the X direction (X axis), the Y coil detects magnetic fields in the Y direction (Y axis), and the Z coil magnetic fields
in the Z direction (Z axis). The baseline length of the gradiometricpickup coils is extended to 68 mm to be optimized for the deep
magnetic sources in the spinal cord. The typical noise level of the
SQUID sensors was less than 5 fT/Hz1/2 at 1 kHz.
Rabbits were placed on the biomagnetometer system in thesupine position, ensuring that the spine was parallel to the X axis
and that the body surface was parallel to the X–Y plane (Fig. 4).
LCEFs were recorded while leaving the dorsal skin surface andspine intact. The signals from each sensor were acquired at a sampling rate of 40 kHz, with 10 Hz to 5 kHz bandpass filtering.
Approximately 6000 responses to electrical stimulation were averaged at each sensor. The number of averages was set as waveforms
adequate for evaluation. Another similar measurement was madeafter the rabbit was moved 5 mm along the X axis, and LCEFs were
measured eight times in total for each rabbit. Accordingly, signals
from 320 different measurement points were obtained (Fig. 4c)
and LCEFs were visualized as isomagnetic contour maps. Afterthe spinal cord compression, LCEFs were recorded in the samemanner.
Two marker coils that generate sinusoidal magnetic fields(8 mm in diameter and driven by a given current of 50–200 lA)
were placed on the rabbit, and the positions of the marker coilsin the measurement area were obtained (Erné et al., 1987). The relative positions of the marker coils, spinal column, and epiduralelectrode were determined from X-ray film (Fig. 5). Using thisinformation, we obtained the position of the neural activity inthe measurement area.
2.5. Signal processing
Raw data of the recorded LCEFs were first processed using an
artifact reduction method, the dual signal subspace projection
algorithm (Sekihara et al., 2016). Then, the position and intensityof current sources were reconstructed from the processed datausing a spatial filter algorithm, the recursive null-steering (RENS)
beamformer (Kumihashi and Sekihara, 2010; Sekihara andNagarajan, 2015).
2.6. Model of the incomplete spinal cord compression

Fig. 2. X-ray image of the lumbar spine and sacrum with a catheter electrode andFogarty catheter. A catheter electrode is inserted into the lumbar spinal canal torecord LCEPs. A Fogarty catheter with a 6-mm-diameter balloon (Edwards
Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) is advanced to the level of the L7 vertebra to exert spinal
cord compression. LCEP: lumbar canal evoked potential.

zawa Institute of Technology (Adachi et al., 2009). The sensor arrayis composed of 40 SQUID magnetic flux sensors arranged in aneight-by-five matrix-like configuration at 20-mm intervals(Fig. 3). Each sensor is a vector-type gradiometer that contains
three pickup coils (X, Y, and Z coils) positioned orthogonally to

A Fogarty catheter with a 6-mm-diameter balloon (Edwards
Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) was inserted into the lumbar epiduralspace through the same hole used for insertion of the epidural electrode. The tip of the catheter was advanced to the level of L6–7 vertebra, with the position confirmed using X-ray imaging (Fig. 2). The
balloon was positioned between two poles of the epidural electrode, specifically the second and the third poles from the caudal
side. In rabbits, the lumbar enlargement in the spinal cord contains
the L4–7 and S1–3 spinal nerves that contribute to the lumbosacral
plexus, including the sciatic nerve, and the spinal cord continues
into the sacral vertebrae (Greenaway et al., 2001; Sohn andCouto, 2012). In the present study, the spinal cord compression
was performed at the L6–7 vertebra.
After the position of the catheter was determined, contrast dye
was injected to pressurize the spinal cord. The balloon (filled with
contrast dye) was confirmed to be at L6–7 by X-ray (Fig. 2). The
spinal cord compression was maintained until simultaneously
recorded LCEPs decreased less than 50% in peak amplitude to
induce incomplete injury. Following the recording of LCEFs after
the spinal compression, LCEPs were recorded again to confirm thatthe amplitude loss had not recovered.

1255

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

a)
X

Z

140 mmYb)sensor unit

20 mm
spinal cord
10 mm

80 mm
rabbitcoil X
coil Ycoil Z

X

Y
Z

Fig. 3. The 120-channel SQUID biomagnetometer system (Applied Electronics Laboratory, Kanazawa Institute of Technology). (a) Overhead and side views of the sensor array.
The sensor array is composed of 40 SQUID magnetic flux sensors arranged in an eight-by-five matrix-like configuration at 20-mm intervals. The rabbit is placed on the outersurface of the biomagnetometer system in the supine position. The spine and spinal cord are assumed to be parallel to the X axis and the body surface is parallel to the X–Y
plane. (b) Each sensor is a vector-type gradiometer, which contains three pickup coils positioned orthogonally to one another (X, Y, and Z coils). Each sensor simultaneously
detects magnetic fields in each corresponding direction (e.g., the X coil is defined to detect magnetic fields in the X direction).

2.7. Localization of the spinal cord compression
The positions of the lesion sites were estimated in the seven
rabbits by analysis of LCEPs and reconstructed currents. The positions of the center of the balloon and the poles of the epidural electrode were obtained from X-ray film and marker coil localization;
the stimulation side (caudal side) was assumed to be the negative
direction in the X axis.
In the analysis of the LCEPs, we assumed that the level of thelesion site would be the midpoint of the two electrodes where
the peak amplitude is decreased to less than 50% of the recording
before the spinal cord compression. In addition, reconstructed currents flowing into the spinal canal were used to estimate the compression site. The lesion site was assumed to be the position where
the current apparently was attenuated and decelerated. The purpose of this study was to localize the lesion site in the lumbar
spinal canal by using the neural activity of the depolarization site.
We used reconstructed currents flowing perpendicularly toward
the spinal canal because they are supposed to be generated fromdepolarization, given their directions.

3. Results
3.1. LCEPs before and after spinal cord compression
LCEPs in response to sciatic nerve stimulation before and after
spinal compression were recorded in all animals. The conduction
velocities (CVs) of the LCEPs before the spinal cord compression—
calculated from the peak latency—were 110.7 ± 16.5 m/s(mean ± standard deviation [SD], n = 7). The maximum peak-topeak amplitude before the compression was 393.7 ± 203.4 mV(mean ± SD, n = 7). After the spinal cord compression, the LCEPs

decelerated and were attenuated beyond the compression site
(Fig. 5). Figs. 5–9 show results from the same subject.
3.2. LCEFs before and after spinal cord compression
LCEFs before and after spinal cord compression could berecorded in all rabbits. The LCEFs of a representative case in
response to sciatic nerve stimulation obtained from the X, Y, andZ coils are shown in Fig. 6. The stimulation was on the positive sideof the Y direction and the left side of the rabbit. In each coil, theupward waveform of the LCEFs indicates a positive direction ineach axis. The LCEFs from coil X were magnetic fields almost parallel to the spinal cord. The amplitudes of the LCEFs from the X
coils were generally larger on the contralateral side of the stimulation (e.g., the waveforms marked with asterisks in Fig. 6b). Coil Y
picked up magnetic fields perpendicular to the spinal cord andthe amplitude was larger near the spinal canal (see asterisks in
Fig. 6c). In contrast, coil Z picked up vertical magnetic fields; theventral-to-dorsal direction is positive in the rabbit. The polarity
of LCEFs from Z coils was reversed for the right vs left sides ofthe spinal canal (e.g., asterisks in Fig. 6d).
Compared with the large LCEF waveforms before the spinal cord
compression, those after the spinal cord compression decelerated
or were attenuated in amplitude around the lesion site (e.g., redrimmed waveforms in Fig. 6b and c, blue-rimmed waveforms in
Fig. 6d).
Amplified waveforms of LCEFs from coil X before and after the
spinal cord compression are shown in Fig. 6e. LCEFs recorded
beside the spinal canal are shown because the magnetic fields fromthe X coil peaking above the volume currents flow into the spinal
cord. These illustrated recording points are on the side opposite
to the stimulation because the amplitudes of the LCEFs on theother side of the stimulation were larger, as described above. The

1256

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266c)a)stimulation

sensor

Y

X
Z
Z
X
Y

spinal cord

b)

Z
X
Y
Fig. 4. Measurement area of LCEFs. (a) The rabbit is supine on the biomagnetometer system. (b) Overhead view (the ventral-to-dorsal direction in the animal) of the sensor
array composed of 40 SQUID sensors. The spinal cord is assumed to be parallel to the X axis. (c) After one measurement of the LCEF, the rabbit was moved in the positive
direction along the X axis and the LCEF recording was repeated. LCEFs were measured eight times in total for each rabbit. Accordingly, signals from 320 different
measurement points were obtained. Black circles represent the first measurement points. LCEF: lumbar canal evoked magnetic field.

Fig. 5. LCEPs before and after the spinal compression. The X-ray image is shown in the dorsal-to-ventral direction of the animal. White circles in the X-ray image show thepositions of the five poles of the catheter electrode. The dotted line means the center of the balloon used to compress the spinal cord. After the compression, the LCEPs
decelerated and were attenuated at the pole second from cranial. Figs. 5–9 show results from the same subject. LCEP: lumbar canal evoked potential.

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

mean CV calculated from the peak latency of the LCEFs from coil X
was 139.0 ± 13.3 m/s (mean ± SD, n = 7). The maximum peak-topeak amplitude before the compression was 240.24 ± 58.27 fT(mean ± SD, n = 7). After the compression, the waveforms wereattenuated near the lesion site.
The isomagnetic contour maps in Fig. 7 show the spatiotemporal transition of the LCEFs recorded from the X, Y, and Z coils before
and after the spinal compression. The correspondence of the color
in the contour map to the direction of the magnetic field is similar
to that in Supplementary Fig. S1. In the contour map of the X coil(Fig. 7a), the red contour on the right side shows an X positivedirected magnetic field that is generated by currents flowing
toward the spinal canal (starred area). After the compression, thered contour (starred area) was attenuated before the compression
site. The LCEF from coil Y was highest above the spinal cord, andthe magnetic field, illustrated as a red contour, was not evident
in the contour map after the compression (Fig. 7b). In the contour
map of the Z coil (Fig. 7c), the polarity of the magnetic fields wasreversed on either side of the spinal cord. Before the compression,
the leading magnetic field appeared from 1.0–1.4 ms. Because theleft contour was red and the right one was blue, this magnetic field
was generated by X positive-directed currents. Subsequently, thetrailing magnetic field with reversed polarity appeared (1.6–
2.0 ms), generated by X negative-directed currents. After the compression, the leading magnetic field decelerated, and the trailingmagnetic field did not appear until 2.0 ms.

1257

amplitude. Similarly, the lesion sites in the seven rabbits estimatedfrom the transition of reconstructed currents are shown as black
dots (mean ± SD, 0.00 ± 4.50 mm; n = 7). The lesion site is assumed
to be where the positive peak of reconstructed currents flowing
perpendicularly toward the conduction pathway decelerated andwas attenuated (as shown in Fig. 8d). As described in Sections
3.2 and 3.3, currents on the opposite side of the stimulation andflowing perpendicular toward the spinal canal were evaluated.

4. Discussion
MSG successfully visualized LCEFs in three directions as contour
maps in response to sciatic nerve stimulation before and after
spinal cord compression. As described in the Introduction, LCEFs

3.3. Reconstructed currents
The pseudocolor map and spatiotemporal transition of currents
reconstructed from LCEFs by the spatial filter, the RENS beamformer, are shown in Fig. 8. In the pseudocolor map (Fig. 8a andb), arrows represent the direction of reconstructed currents andthe color indicates the intensity of reconstructed currents (red ishigher and blue is lower). Before the compression (Fig. 8a),caudal-to-cranial currents appeared and conducted cranially(1.0–1.5 ms) and opposite-directed currents conducted similarly(1.6–2.1 ms). After the compression (Fig. 8b), the leading currents
appeared (1.0–1.7 ms) but were attenuated near the level of the
spinal compression (dotted line). The trailing currents appeared
at 2.0 ms but they did not pass beyond the compression site.
The blue circles in Fig. 8c are arbitrarily selected points to evaluate currents perpendicularly flowing toward the spinal canal.
They are considered ‘‘virtual electrodes” and are numbered R1 to
R10. These circles are at intervals of 5 mm and 10 mm away fromthe black line set as the center of the spinal canal. Because magnetic fields are generally larger on the other side of the stimulation,
as described in Section 3.2, the blue circles are selected on the
opposite side of the stimulation. Waveforms at blue circles indicate
currents flowing perpendicular to the black line, and the direction
toward the black line is upward in the waveform. Before the compression, the peak intensity of currents at blue circles was conducted in the caudal-to-cranial direction as time proceeded(Fig. 8c). However, after the spinal compression, the reconstructedcurrents decelerated and were attenuated around the level of the
spinal cord compression (dotted line and R6 to R5 in Fig. 8c). The
transition of the peak latency and the current density of the currents at the blue circles are shown in Fig. 8d. Changes in electrodeR5 are apparent in both graphs.
3.4. Localization of the spinal cord compression
The positions of the lesion sites in the seven rabbits estimatedby the LCEPs are shown in Fig. 9 (gray dots; mean ± SD, –0.88 ± 6.
10 mm; n = 7). The lesion site is assumed to be the midpoint of tworecording points where the LCEPs decreased more than 50% in peakFig. 6. (a) Measurement points and a schematic illustration of the lumbar spine andthe spinal cord are overlaid on an X-ray image shown in the dorsal-to-ventral
direction of the animal. Gray circles represent the first measurement points. The
dotted line represents the center of the balloon. The stimulation is on the positiveside of the Y axis (the left side of the rabbit). (b), (c) and (d) LCEFs before and after
the spinal compression recorded from the sensors corresponding to the gray circles
in (a). Recordings on the left side of the figure are before the compression and thoseon the right side are after the compression. Sensors out of order show a flat line. The
spinal canal is located near the sixth columns from the left. (b) Left: LCEFs from X
coils are generally larger on the opposite side of the stimulation (the negative sideof the Y axis, the right side of the spinal canal). The signals on the right side of the
spinal canal (asterisks) are larger than those on the left side. After the spinal cord
compression, LCEFs on the right were decelerated and attenuated around thecompression level compared with those on the left (e.g., red-rimmed waveforms).
(c) LCEFs from Y coils. The signals near the spinal canal are larger than those on theright and left sides of the spinal canal (asterisks). The signals decelerated after the
spinal cord compression (e.g., red-rimmed waveforms). (d) LCEFs from Z coils. The
polarity of the waveforms is reversed for the right vs left sides of the spinal canal(asterisks). The attenuation or deceleration after the spinal cord compression is also
detectable (e.g., blue-rimmed waveforms). (e) LCEFs recorded from the X coil andlocalization of the lesion site. Waveforms of LCEFs recorded from the X coil before
and after the spinal compression. The stimulation is on the positive side of the Yaxis (the left side of the rabbit). Filled white circles represent the poles of the
epidural electrode. Gray dotted circles represent 320 recording points of LCEFs, andblue circles are selected to show LCEFs near the lesion site. Blue circles are notimmediately above but lateral to the spinal canal because the magnetic fields fromthe X coil are maximal above the volume currents flowing into the spinal cord. Afterthe compression, the waveforms were attenuated near the lesion site. LCEF: lumbar
canal evoked magnetic field.

1258

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266b) X coil
before

after

left

left

*

*
*
X

*

Y

*
X

*

Y

200 fT

200 fT
1 ms

1 msc) Y coil
before

after

left

left

*
*
X
Y

*
*

X

*

Y

200 fT

200 fT
1 ms

1 ms
Fig. 6 (continued)

1259

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266d) Z coil
after

before

left

left

*

*
*

X
Y

*

*
X

*

Y

200 fT

200 fT
1 ms

1 ms

e)

LCEF from X coil
beforeafter

electrode number
1098

compression

7

site

6
5
4
3
X: 15 mm2

Y: 15 mm

1
200 fT
2 ms
Fig. 6 (continued)

1260

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

Fig. 7. Magnetic contour maps illustrated by LCEFs from the X, Y and Z coils. The X-ray image and contour maps are shown in the dorsal-to-ventral view. The left side of the
figure corresponds to the left side of the rabbit. In the contour map, red indicates magnetic fields in the positive direction of each axis, and blue indicates negative. The
correspondence of the color in the contour map to the direction of the magnetic field is similar to that of Supplementary Fig. S1. The stimulation is on the positive side of the Yaxis, the left side of the rabbit. (a) Contour maps of LCEFs from the X coil before and after the spinal compression. The red contour (starred) shows an X positive-directedmagnetic field. After the compression, the red contour was attenuated before the compression site. (b) Contour map of the Y coil. The LCEF is maximum above the spinal cord,
and the magnetic field illustrated as a red contour did not appear in the contour map after the compression. (c) Contour map of the Z coil. The polarity of the magnetic fields isreversed on either side of the spinal cord. Before the compression, the leading magnetic field, which is depicted as a pair of positive and negative magnetic fields, appeared
from 1.0–1.4 ms. Subsequently, the trailing magnetic field with reversed polarity appeared (1.6–2.0 ms). After the compression, the leading magnetic field decelerated and thetrailing magnetic field did not appear until 2.0 ms. LCEF: lumbar canal evoked magnetic field.

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

Fig. 7 (continued)

1261

1262

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

Fig. 7 (continued)

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

1263

Fig. 8. Currents reconstructed from LCEFs before and after the spinal compression. (a) Reconstructed current map before the spinal compression. Caudal-to-cranial–directedcurrents appeared and conducted cranially (1.0–1.5 ms) and opposite-directed currents appeared and conducted similarly (1.6–2.1 ms). The stimulation is on the positive sideof the Y axis. (b) Reconstructed current map after the spinal compression. Dotted lines show the spinal compression site. The leading currents appeared but decelerated andwere attenuated near the dotted line (1.0–1.7 ms). The trailing currents appeared at 2.0 ms and were attenuated before the dotted line. (c) Waveform of reconstructedcurrents before and after the compression. Dotted lines show the spinal compression site. Blue circles (numbered from R1 to R10) are arbitrarily selected points at 5-mm
intervals and 10 mm away from the black line representing the center of the spinal canal. Waveforms at blue circles indicate the density of currents perpendicularly flowing
toward the black line. Before the spinal compression, the peak intensity of the currents conducted in the caudal-to-cranial direction. After the compression, these currents
decelerated and were attenuated around the lesion site. (d) Spatiotemporal transition of the peak latency and current density of reconstructed currents at the blue circles inFig. 8c (numbered R1 to R10). There are clear changes at electrode R5 in both graphs. LCEF: lumbar canal evoked magnetic field.

1264

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

before compression
after compression

R10

R10

R9

R9

R8

R8

R7

R7

Electrode number

electrode number

d)

R6

R5

R6

R5

R4

R4

R3

R3

R2

R2

R1

R1

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

1

2

3

current intensity [nA/m2]

latency [ms]Fig. 8 (continued)

45

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

1265

Fig. 9. Scatter plot of lesion sites estimated by LCEPs and reconstructed currents. In LCEPs, the lesion site is assumed to be the midpoint of two recording points where thepeak amplitude decreased to less than 50% of the recording before the spinal compression. In reconstructed currents, the lesion sites are estimated by the change in the peaklatency and the current density, as shown in Fig. 8d. Gray dots represent the lesion sites of the seven rabbits estimated by LCEPs and black dots represent those estimated byreconstructed currents. The caudal stimulation side is assumed to be negative in this scale, and the center of the balloon is set as zero. LCEP: lumbar canal evoked potential.

from coil Z represent magnetic fields generated mainly by intraaxonal currents (Supplementary Fig. S1). Before the spinal cord
compression, the contour map of the Z coil showed the leading
and trailing magnetic fields conducting in the caudal-to-cranial
direction. However, the leading component of the magnetic field
decelerated and was attenuated around the lesion site after thecompression. In addition, the trailing component barely appeared
at 2.0 ms (Fig. 7c). As we have reported in our previous studies
of isolated peripheral nerves, the first component of magnetic
fields generated by the leading intra-axonal current is attenuatedaround the lesion site. When the depolarization site reaches thelesion site, the trailing component or the trailing intra-axonal currents are also attenuated and disappear before the lesion site
(Fukuoka et al., 2002, 2004).
The signals recorded from coil X were magnetic fields mainly
caused by currents flowing into and out of the nerve (Supplementary Fig. S1c). Because the middle component of the LCEFs from coil
X is generated by volume currents flowing into the depolarization
site, the starred area in the isomagnetic contour map represents
magnetic fields generated by such currents (Fig. 7a). These components are shown as a positive peak in Fig. 6e. The LCEFs from thedepolarization site can be used for localization. We also analyzed
these signals and estimated the positions of the lesions in theseven rabbits (mean ± SD, –2.33 ± 7.54 mm; n = 7). However, in thisreport, we presented the results of LCEPs and reconstructed currents to focus on the clinical application of MSG.
In this study, the amplitudes of LCEFs from X sensors were generally larger on the contralateral side of the stimulation (Fig. 6b). A
similar phenomenon was observed in our previous studies withanimal and human subjects (Ishii et al., 2012; Tomizawa et al.,2008). Because the conductive pathway from the peroneal nerve
to the spinal cord is curved, it is possible that the LCEFs on the concave side (the stimulation side) cancel each other out. However,further research is needed to elucidate this phenomenon.
Before the spinal cord compression, the middle positive peak of
the LCEFs representing the depolarization site was conducted in
the caudal-to-cranial direction at a similar CV to that of the LCEPs(Figs. 5, 6b), although the mean CV of the LCEFs was higher thanthat of the LCEPs. After the compression, this positive peak of the
LCEF from coil X decelerated or was attenuated near the lesion site
(Fig. 6b and e).
In the seven rabbits, the lesion sites could be estimated by the
LCEPs (gray dots in Fig. 9) and the currents reconstructed from
LCEFs (black dots in Fig. 9). The means of the estimated lesion sites
in the LCEPs and reconstructed currents were both within 1 mm
(mean ± SD: LCEPs, –0.88 ± 6.10 mm; reconstructed currents, 0.0
0 ± 4.50 mm). These estimated lesion sites could not be statisticallycompared because the distances between the measurement points
differed between LCEPs (15 mm) and LCEFs (5 mm). However, it
can be concluded that the lesion sites could be estimated by reconstructed currents corresponding to a depolarization site to the sim-

ilar extent as the LCEPs directly recorded from the epidural
catheter electrode.
In the representative case shown in Figs. 6–9, the lesion sites
estimated by the LCEPs and reconstructed currents were
11.06 mm and –2.5 mm, respectively. This was a case when thediscrepancy between the center of the balloon and the estimatedlesion site was the largest in LCEPs. It could be due to a broader
interval of electrodes in LCEPs or the relative position of the balloon and the poles of the electrode. However, further research on
the correspondence between LCEPs and LCEFs at the lesion site
may be needed.
The currents reconstructed from the LCEFs also propagated in
the caudal-to-cranial direction before the spinal cord compression(Fig. 8a) and decelerated and were attenuated around the lesion
site after the compression (Fig. 8b). The reconstructed currents atthe blue circles in Fig. 8c are currents flowing toward the spinal
cord. Considering their directions, these are supposed to be currents flowing into the depolarization site. As shown in Fig. 9, thelesion sites can be estimated by the reconstructed currents at theblue circles within an error of 7.5 mm.
In some ways, it can be advantageous to record LCEFs rather
than LCEPs. First, MSG can visualize neural activity as reconstructed currents. Although analysis of neural currents is difficultin traditional electrophysiological examinations, the visualizationof conducting currents is sufficiently thorough for examiners not
specialized in neurophysiology and may contribute to new neurological findings. Second, MSG does not need a contact sensor arraynor an epidural electrode, in contrast to the recording of evoked
potentials. As described in the Introduction, recording of LCEPs
from an epidural electrode has been used because skin surface
recording lacks accuracy. Therefore, we considered MSG, which isa less invasive and more efficient modality for functional examination of the spinal cord.
There have been a few pioneering reports on evoked magnetic
fields in the lumbar region (Mackert et al., 1997, 1998; Klein
et al., 2006). Mackert et al. (1997, 1998) used MNG to localize a
conduction block in the S1 nerve root caused by an L5/S herniateddisc. However, the evoked signals were about 10 fT and the estimated position was 2.5 cm more caudally to the lesion site. The
results were not precise enough for clinical use, mainly due to limitations in the recording device and signal processing at the time ofthe experiment.
Although we have already reported LCEFs in animal and humansubjects, the present study has some differences from our previous
reports, besides improvements in the MSG device and signal processing methods. First, we have previously recorded LCEFs ofhealthy human subjects in response to peripheral nerve stimulation (Ishii et al., 2012; Sumiya et al., 2017), but we evaluated LCEFs
with spinal cord compression in this study. Second, in previous
studies, LCEFs recorded from the lumbar area contained magnetic
fields from both propagating action currents and synaptic activities

1266

K. Sakaki et al. / Clinical Neurophysiology 131 (2020) 1252–1266

in the dorsal horn (Ishii et al., 2012; Tomizawa et al., 2008). In thisreport, we used higher frequency stimulation to suppress synaptic
activity, enabling easier observation of conducting neural activities
mainly from the dorsal column (Seyal and Gabor, 1987). Third, we
have reported the LCEFs of the cervical spinal cord of animals in
response to stimulation of the lower thoracic spinal cord, recorded
after cervical laminectomy (Kawabata et al., 2002) or from the skinsurface (Tomori et al., 2010). In the present study, we used peripheral nerve stimulation, which is less invasive and can be clinicallyapplied. In addition, the magnetic fields were measured from theintact skin surface.
While research in MSG has progressed and we have reported
LCEFs of the cervical spinal cord in human subjects (Sumiya
et al., 2017), there are still several topics to be elucidated to refine
the clinical use of MSG; for example, magnetic fields generated bysynaptic activity or the nerve plexus, an optimal and less invasive
stimulation method. This study also has some limitations.
Although the magnetic fields from synaptic activity were suppressed by higher frequency stimulation, the recorded magnetic
fields contained the neural activities of both the lumbar spinal cordand cauda equina, considering the anatomy of the rabbit spinal
cord (Greenaway et al., 2001; Sohn and Couto, 2012). Further study
is needed to differentiate these combined signals. In addition, muscle relaxant was used and artifacts from muscle contraction were
negligible in this study. However, the clinical use of this techniquein human subjects necessitates less invasive stimulation and theartifact reduction method should be further improved.
5. Conclusions
In summary, MSG recorded at the skin surface can successfully
visualize neural activity in the rabbit spinal cord and cauda equina
in response to sciatic nerve stimulation. The position of the spinal
cord compression site can be estimated by reconstructed currents
from the depolarization site, with a similar precision to LCEPs froman epidural catheter electrode. This study provides further
advances toward the clinical application of MSG.
Funding
This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology in Japan [grant number No. 19659376]. The funding source had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in thedecision to submit the article for publication.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None of the authors has potential conflicts of interest to bedisclosed.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online athttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2020.02.025.
References
Adachi Y, Kawai J, Miyamoto M, Ogata H, Tomori M, Kawabata S, et al. A SQUID
system for measurement of spinal cord evoked field of supine subjects. IEEE

Trans
Appl
Supercond
2009;19:861–6.
https://doi.org/10.1109/
TASC.2009.2019199.
Erné SN, Narici L, Pizella V, Romani GL. The positioning problem in biomagnetic
measurements: a solution for arrays of superconducting sensors. IEEE Trans
Magn 1987;23:1319–22. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.1987.1064889.
Fukuoka Y, Komori H, Kawabata S, Ohkubo H, Shinomiya K, Terasaki O. Imaging ofneural conduction block by neuromagnetic recording. Clin Neurophysiol
2002;113:1985–92.
Fukuoka Y, Komori H, Kawabata S, Ohkubo H, Shinomiya K. Visualization ofincomplete conduction block by neuromagnetic recording. Clin Neurophysiol
2004;115:2113–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2004.03.033.
Greenaway JB, Partlow GD, Gonsholt NL, Fisher KR. Anatomy of the lumbosacral
spinal cord in rabbits. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2001;37:27–34. https://doi.org/
10.5326/15473317-37-1-27.
Hoshino Y, Kawabata S, Komori H, Ohkubo H, Tomizawa M, Shinomiya K. Threedimensional neuromagnetic recording in the spinal cord. Int Congress Series
2005;1278:309–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2004.11.004.
Ishii S, Kawabata S, Tomizawa S, Tomori M, Sakaki K, Shinomiya K, et al. Conductive
neuromagnetic fields in the lumbar spinal canal. Clin Neurophysiol
2012;123:1656–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2011.12.014.
Kakigi R, Shibasaki H, Hashizume A, Kuroiwa Y. Short latency somatosensory
evoked spinal and scalp-recorded potentials following posterior tibial nerve
stimulation in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1982;53:602–11.
Kawabata S, Komori H, Mochida K, Harunobu O, Shinomiya K. Visualization of
conductive spinal cord activity using a biomagnetometer. Spine
2002;27:475–9.
Klein A, van Leeuwen P, Hoormann J, Gronemeyer D. Magnetoneurographic
registration of propagating magnetic fields in the lumbar spine after
stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve. J Neural Eng 2006;3:125–31.
Kumihashi I, Sekihara K. Array-gain constraint minimum-norm spatial filter withrecursively updated gram matrix for biomagnetic source imaging. IEEE Trans
Biomed Eng 2010;57:1358–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2010.2040735.
Mackert BM, Curio G, Burghoff M, Marx P. Mapping of tibial nerve evoked magnetic
fields over the lower spine. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol
1997;104:322–7.
Mackert BM, Curio G, Burghoff M, Trahms L, Marx P. Magnetoneurographic 3D
localization of conduction blocks in patients with unilateral S1 root
compression. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998;109:315–20.
Ohkubo H, Komori H, Kawabata S, Fukuoka Y, Shinomiya K. Estimation of
localization of neural activity in the spinal cord using a biomagnetometer. J
Med Dent Sci 2003;50:177–82.
Sarvas J. Basic mathematical and electromagnetic concepts of the biomagnetic
inverse problem. Phys Med Biol 1987;32:11–22.
Sekihara K, Kawabata Y, Ushio S, Sumiya S, Kawabata S, Adachi Y, Nagarajan SS. Dualsignal subspace projection (DSSP): a novel algorithm for removing large
interference in biomagnetic measurements. J Neural Eng 2016;13. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1741-2560/13/3/036007 036007.
Sekihara K, Nagarajan SS. Electromagnetic brain imaging. Cham: Springer
International Publishing; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14947-9.
Seyal M, Gabor AJ. Generators of human spinal somatosensory evoked potentials. J
Clin Neurophysiol 1987;4:177–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(83)90210-9.
Sohn J, Couto MA. Anatomy, physiology and behavior. In: Suckow MA, Stevens KA,
Wilson RP, editors. The laboratory rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, and otherrodents. Academic Press; 2012. p. 195–215.
Stenroos M, Sarvas J. Bioelectromagnetic forward problem: isolated source
approach revis(it)ed. Phys Med Biol 2012;57:3517–35. https://doi.org/
10.1088/0031-9155/57/11/3517.
Sumiya S, Kawabata S, Hoshino Y, Adachi Y, Sekihara K, Tomizawa S, et al.
Magnetospinography visualizes electrophysiological activity in the cervicalspinal cord. Sci Rep 2017;7:2192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-024068.
Tomizawa S, Kawabata S, Komori H, Hoshino Fukuoka Y, Shinomiya K. Evaluation ofsegmental spinal cord evoked magnetic fields after sciatic nerve stimulation.
Clin
Neurophysiol
2008;119:1111–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clinph.2008.01.017.
Tomori M, Kawabata S, Tomizawa S, Ishii S, Enomoto M, Adachi Y, et al. Diagnosis ofincomplete conduction block of spinal cord from skin surface using spinal cord
evoked magnetic fields. J Orthop Sci 2010;15:371–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00776-010-1463-3.
Wijesinghe RS. Magnetic measurements of peripheral nerve function using aneuromagnetic current probe. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 2010;235:159–69.
https://doi.org/10.1258/ebm.2009.009306.
Yamada T, Machida M, Kimura J. Far-field somatosensory evoked potentials after
stimulation of the tibial nerve. Neurology 1982;32:1151–8.
Yamada T. Neuroanatomic substrates of lower extremity somatosensory evoked
potentials. J Clin Neurophysiol 2000;17:269–79.