Sparsity enables estimation of both subcortical and cortical activity from MEG and EEG

Edited by Robert Desimone, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved September 18, 2017 (received for review March 31, 2017)
November 14, 2017
114 (48) E10465-E10474

Significance

Subcortical structures play a critical role in brain functions such as sensory perception, memory, emotion, and consciousness. There are limited options for assessing neuronal dynamics within subcortical structures in humans. Magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography can measure electromagnetic fields generated by subcortical activity. But localizing the sources of these fields is very difficult, because the fields generated by subcortical structures are small and cannot be distinguished from distributed cortical activity. We show that cortical and subcortical fields can be distinguished if the cortical sources are sparse. We then describe an algorithm that uses sparsity in a hierarchical fashion to jointly localize cortical and subcortical sources. Our work offers alternative perspectives and tools for assessing subcortical brain dynamics in humans.

Abstract

Subcortical structures play a critical role in brain function. However, options for assessing electrophysiological activity in these structures are limited. Electromagnetic fields generated by neuronal activity in subcortical structures can be recorded noninvasively, using magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG). However, these subcortical signals are much weaker than those generated by cortical activity. In addition, we show here that it is difficult to resolve subcortical sources because distributed cortical activity can explain the MEG and EEG patterns generated by deep sources. We then demonstrate that if the cortical activity is spatially sparse, both cortical and subcortical sources can be resolved with M/EEG. Building on this insight, we develop a hierarchical sparse inverse solution for M/EEG. We assess the performance of this algorithm on realistic simulations and auditory evoked response data, and show that thalamic and brainstem sources can be correctly estimated in the presence of cortical activity. Our work provides alternative perspectives and tools for characterizing electrophysiological activity in subcortical structures in the human brain.

Continue Reading

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge data collection assistance from Samantha Huang, Stephanie Rossi, and Tommi Raij; helpful discussions on source space construction with Koen Van Leemput, Imam Aganj, Doug Greve, and Bruce Fischl; and helpful discussions on canonical correlations and sparsity with Demba Ba and Emery N. Brown. This work was supported by NIH Grants P41-EB015896, 5R01EB022889, and 5R01-EB009048, NIH Grant 1S10RR031599-01 (to M.S.H.), and NIH Grant DP2-OD006454 (to P.L.P.).

Supporting Information

Appendix (PDF)

References

1
EG Jones, The thalamic matrix and thalamocortical synchrony. Trends Neurosci 24, 595–601 (2001).
2
EG Jones, Thalamic circuitry and thalamocortical synchrony. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 357, 1659–1673 (2002).
3
M Steriade, DA McCormick, TJ Sejnowski, Thalamocortical oscillations in the sleeping and aroused brain. Science 262, 679–685 (1993).
4
G Buzsaki, Theta oscillations in the hippocampus. Neuron 33, 325–340 (2016).
5
S Ching, A Cimenser, PL Purdon, EN Brown, NJ Kopell, Thalamocortical model for a propofol-induced alpha-rhythm associated with loss of consciousness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107, 22665–22670 (2010).
6
M Steriade, D Contreras, F Amzica, I Timofeev, Synchronization of fast (30-40 hz) spontaneous oscillations in intrathalamic and thalamocortical networks. J Neurosci 16, 2788–2808 (1996).
7
V Crunelli, SW Hughes, The slow rhythm of non-REM sleep: A dialogue between three cardinal oscillators. Nat Neurosci 13, 9–17 (2010).
8
SW Hughes, V Crunelli, Thalamic mechanisms of EEG alpha rhythms and their pathological implications. Neuroscientist 11, 357–372 (2005).
9
AM Graybiel, The basal ganglia. Curr Biol 10, 509–511 (2000).
10
GE Alexander, MR DeLong, PL Strick, Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 9, 357–381 (1986).
11
SN Haber, The primate basal ganglia: Parallel and integrative networks. J Chem Neuroanat 26, 317–330 (2003).
12
EA Phelps, JE LeDoux, Contributions of the amygdala to emotion processing: From animal models to human behavior. Neuron 48, 175–187 (2005).
13
RJ Douglas, KH Pribram, Learning and limbic lesions. Neuropsychologia 4, 197–220 (1966).
14
H Blumenfeld Neuroanatomy Through Clinical Cases (Sinauer, 2nd Ed, Sunderland, MA, 2010).
15
, eds DL Schomer, FL da Silva (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 6th Ed, Philadelphia) Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications and Related Fields, pp. 669–724 (2010).
16
MS Hämäläinen, Magnetoencephalography - theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Rev Mod Phys 65, 413–505 (1993).
17
S Baillet, JC Mosher, RM Leahy, Electromagnetic brain mapping. IEEE Signal Process Mag 18, 14–30 (2001).
18
A Dale, M Sereno, Improved localization of cortical activity by combining EEG and MEG with MRI cortical surface reconstruction: A linear approach. J Cogn Neurosci 5, 162–176 (1993).
19
AM Dale, et al., Dynamic statistical parametric mapping: Combining fMRI and MEG for high-resolution imaging of cortical activity. Neuron 26, 55–67 (2000).
20
W Ou, MS Hämäläinen, P Golland, A distributed spatio-temporal EEG/MEG inverse solver. Neuroimage 44, 932–946 (2009).
21
A Gramfort, D Strohmeier, J Haueisen, MS Hämäläinen, M Kowalski, Time-frequency mixed-norm estimates: Sparse M/EEG imaging with non-stationary source activations. Neuroimage 70, 410–422 (2013).
22
Y Attal, D Schwartz, Assessment of subcortical source localization using deep brain activity imaging model with minimum norm operators: An MEG study. PLoS One 8, e59856 (2013).
23
R Salmelin, R Hari, OV Lounasmaa, M Sams, Dynamics of brain activation during picture naming. Nature 368, 463–465 (1994).
24
N Nishitani, R Hari, Viewing lip forms: Cortical dynamics. Neuron 36, 1211–1220 (2002).
25
R Hari, R Ilmoniemi, Cerebral magnetic fields. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 14, 93–126 (1986).
26
D Engemann, A Gramfort, Automated model selection in covariance estimation and spatial whitening of MEG and EEG signals. Neuroimage 108, 328–342 (2015).
27
A Bjorck, GH Golub, Numerical methods for computing angles between linear subspaces. Math Comput 27, 579–594 (1973).
28
AV Knyazev, ME Argentati, Principal angles between subspaces in an A-based scalar product: Algorithms and perturbation estimates. SIAM J Sci Comput 23, 2008–2040 (2002).
29
N Forss, et al., Activation of the human posterior parietal cortex by median nerve stimulation. Exp Brain Res 99, 309–315 (1994).
30
AK Liu, JW Belliveau, AM Dale, Spatiotemporal imaging of human brain activity using functional MRI constrained magnetoencephalography data: Monte Carlo simulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95, 8945–8950 (1998).
31
A Molins, SM Stufflebeam, EN Brown, MS Hämäläinen, Quantification of the benefit from integrating MEG and EEG data in minimum L2-norm estimation. Neuroimage 42, 1069–1077 (2008).
32
JH Friedman, J Tukey, A projection pursuit algorithm for exploratory data analysis. IEEE Trans Comput 23, 881–890 (1973).
33
P Huber, Projection pursuit. Ann Stat 13, 435–475 (1985).
34
D Needell, JA Tropp, CoSaMP: Iterative signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate samples. Appl Comput Harmonic Anal 26, 301–321 (2009).
35
W Dai, O Milenkovic, Subspace pursuit for compressive sensing signal reconstruction. IEEE Trans Inform Theor 55, 2230–2249 (2009).
36
B Babadi, et al., A subspace pursuit-based iterative greedy hierarchical solution to the neuromagnetic inverse problem. NeuroImage 87, 427–443 (2014).
37
S Pockett, Anesthesia and the electrophysiology of auditory consciousness. Conscious Cognit 61, 45–61 (1999).
38
L Parkkonen, N Fujiki, JP Makela, Sources of auditory brainstem responses revisited: Contribution by magnetoencephalography. Hum Brain Mapp 30, 1772–1782 (2009).
39
S Williamson, L Kaufman, Biomagnetism. J Magnetism Magn Mater 22, 129–201 (1981).
40
Y Attal, et al., Modeling and detecting deep brain activity with MEG & EEG. Proc Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2007, 4937–4940 (2007).
41
M Hämäläinen, R Hari Brain Mapping, The MethodsAW Toga, JC Mazziotta (Academic, San Diego, 2002).
42
PL Nunez Neocortical Dynamics and Human EEG Rhythms (Oxford Univ Press, 1st Ed, New York, 1995).
43
JC Mosher, ME Spencer, RM Leahy, PS Lewis, Error bounds for EEG and MEG dipole source localization. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 86, 303–321 (1993).
44
K Sekihara, M Sahani, SS Nagarajan, Localization bias and spatial resolution of adaptive and non-adaptive spatial filters for MEG source reconstruction. Neuroimage 25, 1056–1067 (2005).
45
PL Nunez, R Srinivasan Electric Fields of the Brain: The Neurophysics of EEG (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd Ed, New York, 2006).
46
CD Tesche, Non-invasive imaging of neuronal population dynamics in human thalamus. Brain Res 729, 253–258 (1996).
47
CD Tesche, Non-invasive detection of ongoing neuronal population activity in normal human hippocampus. Brain Res 749, 53–60 (1997).
48
AA Ioannides, et al., Magnetic field tomography of cortical and deep processes: Examples of ‘real-time mapping’ of averaged and single trial MEG signals. Int J Psychophysiol 20, 161–175 (1995).
49
SSN Kensuke Sekihara Adaptive Spatial Filters for Electromagnetic Brain Imaging (Springer, Berlin, 2008).
50
M Crespo-Garcia, et al., Slow-theta power decreases during item-place encoding predict spatial accuracy of subsequent context recall. Neuroimage 142, 533–543 (2016).
51
I Gorodnitsky, J George, B Rao, Neuromagnetic source imaging with FOCUSS: A recursive weighted minimum norm algorithm. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 95, 231–251 (1995).
52
JC Mosher, RM Leahy, Recursive music: A framework for EEG and MEG source localization. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 45, 1342–1354 (1998).
53
K Uutela, M Hämäläinen, E Somersalo, Visualization of magnetoencephalographic data using minimum current estimates. Neuroimage 10, 173–180 (1999).
54
PJ Durka, A Matysiak, EM Montes, PV Sosa, KJ Blinowska, Multichannel matching pursuit and EEG inverse solutions. J Neurosci Methods 148, 49–59 (2005).
55
K Friston, et al., Multiple sparse priors for the M/EEG inverse problem. NeuroImage 39, 1104–1120 (2008).
56
M Vega-Hernandez, E Martinez-Montes, J Sanchez-Bornot, A Lage-Castellanos, P Valdes-Sosa, Penalized least squares methods for solving the EEG inverse problem. Stat Sin 18, 1535–1551 (2008).
57
DP Wipf, JP Owen, HT Attias, K Sekihara, SS Nagarajan, Robust Bayesian estimation of the location, orientation, and time course of multiple correlated neural sources using MEG. Neuroimage 49, 641–55 (2010).
58
A Gramfort, D Strohmeier, J Haueisen, MS Hamalainen, M Kowalski, Functional brain imaging with M/EEG using structured sparsity in time-frequency dictionaries. Proc Conf Inf Process Med Imaging 22, 600–611 (2011).
59
A Gramfort, M Kowalski, MS Hämäläinen, Mixed-norm estimates for the M/EEG inverse problem using accelerated gradient methods. Phys Med Biol 57, 1937–1961 (2012).
60
P Valdes-Sosa, M Vega-Hernandez, JM Sanchez-Bornot, E Martinez-Montes, MA Bobes, EEG source imaging with spatio-temporal tomographic nonnegative independent component analysis. Hum Brain Mapp 30, 1898–1910 (2009).
61
M Vega-Hernandez, E Martinez-Montes, J Sanchez-Bornot, A Lage-Castellanos, PA Valdes-Sosa, Penalized least squares methods for solving the EEG inverse problem. Stat Sin 18, 1535–1551 (2008).
62
NJ Trujillo-Barreto, E Aubert-Vazquez, PA Valdes-Sosa, Bayesian model averaging in EEG/MEG imaging. NeuroImage 21, 1300–1319 (2004).
63
B Babadi, N Kalouptsidis, V Tarokh, SPARLS: The sparse RLS algorithm. IEEE Trans Signal Process 58, 4013–4025 (2010).
64
G Mileounis, B Babadi, N Kalouptsidis, V Tarokh, An adaptive greedy algorithm with application to nonlinear communications. IEEE Trans Signal Process 58, 2998–3007 (2010).
65
AM Dale, B Fischl, MI Sereno, Cortical surface-based analysis: I. Segmentation and surface reconstruction. NeuroImage 9, 179–194 (1999).
66
B Fischl, MI Sereno, AM Dale, Cortical surface-based analysis: II. Inflation, flattening, and a surface-based coordinate system. NeuroImage 9, 195–207 (1999).
67
B Fischl, et al., Whole brain segmentation: Automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron 33, 341–355 (2002).
68
MS Hämäläinen, J Sarvas, Realistic conductivity geometry model of the human head for interpretation of neuromagnetic data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 36, 165–171 (1989).
69
A Gramfort, et al., MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data. NeuroImage 86, 446–460 (2014).
70
T Limpiti, BD Van Veen, RT Wakai, Cortical patch basis model for spatially extended neural activity. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53, 1740–1754 (2006).
71
Y Attal, B Maess, A Friederici, O David, C De, Head models and dynamic causal modeling of subcortical activity using magnetoencephalographic/electroencephalographic data. Rev Neurosci 23, 85–95 (2012).
72
MS Hämäläinen, RJ Ilmoniemi, Interpreting magnetic fields of the brain: Minimum norm estimates. Med Biol Eng Comput 32, 35–42 (1994).
73
JP Makela, MS Hamalainen, R Hari, L McEvoy, Whole-head mapping of middle-latency auditory evoked magnetic fields. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 92, 414–421 (1994).

Information & Authors

Information

Published in

The cover image for PNAS Vol.114; No.48
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Vol. 114 | No. 48
November 28, 2017
PubMed: 29138310

Classifications

Submission history

Published online: November 14, 2017
Published in issue: November 28, 2017

Keywords

  1. MEG
  2. EEG
  3. subcortical structures
  4. source localization
  5. sparsity

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge data collection assistance from Samantha Huang, Stephanie Rossi, and Tommi Raij; helpful discussions on source space construction with Koen Van Leemput, Imam Aganj, Doug Greve, and Bruce Fischl; and helpful discussions on canonical correlations and sparsity with Demba Ba and Emery N. Brown. This work was supported by NIH Grants P41-EB015896, 5R01EB022889, and 5R01-EB009048, NIH Grant 1S10RR031599-01 (to M.S.H.), and NIH Grant DP2-OD006454 (to P.L.P.).

Notes

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

Authors

Affiliations

Pavitra Krishnaswamy
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA 02129;
Harvard–Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139;
Institute for Infocomm Research, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore 138632, Singapore;
Gabriel Obregon-Henao
Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114;
Jyrki Ahveninen
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA 02129;
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115;
Sheraz Khan
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA 02129;
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115;
Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA 02129;
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742;
Juan Eugenio Iglesias
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA 02129;
Matti S. Hämäläinen2,1 [email protected]
Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA 02129;
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115;
Department of Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering, Aalto University School of Science, Espoo 02150, Finland;
The Swedish National Facility for Magnetoencephalography (NatMEG), Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm 17177, Sweden
Patrick L. Purdon2,1 [email protected]
Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114;
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115;

Notes

2
To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: [email protected] or [email protected].
Author contributions: P.K., B.B., M.S.H., and P.L.P. designed research; P.K., G.O.-H., J.A., S.K., and J.E.I. performed research; P.K., G.O.-H., J.A., S.K., B.B., M.S.H., and P.L.P. analyzed data; and P.K., M.S.H, and P.L.P. wrote the paper.
1
M.S.H. and P.L.P. contributed equally to this work.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note: The article usage is presented with a three- to four-day delay and will update daily once available. Due to ths delay, usage data will not appear immediately following publication. Citation information is sourced from Crossref Cited-by service.


Citation statements

Altmetrics

Citations

Export the article citation data by selecting a format from the list below and clicking Export.

Cited by

    Loading...

    View Options

    View options

    PDF format

    Download this article as a PDF file

    DOWNLOAD PDF

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Personal login Institutional Login

    Recommend to a librarian

    Recommend PNAS to a Librarian

    Purchase options

    Purchase this article to access the full text.

    Single Article Purchase

    Sparsity enables estimation of both subcortical and cortical activity from MEG and EEG
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
    • Vol. 114
    • No. 48
    • pp. 12627-E10507

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share article link

    Share on social media