source localization given induced spectra

jan-mathijs schoffelen j.schoffelen at PSY.GLA.AC.UK
Wed Nov 5 10:23:12 CET 2008


Dear Feng,

This is very much possible and no problem at all. Actually, this is
an approach taken by many people in the field.
It's perfectly OK to extimate the time course of a source of interest
by using an LCMV beamformer and compute
spectrograms on these 'virtual channels'.

Yours,

Jan-Mathijs


On Nov 4, 2008, at 5:12 PM, Rong, Feng (NIH/NIDCD) [F] wrote:

> John, Jan-Mathijs,
> Sorry I am not answering the question but asking another one. :)
> I wondering whether it is doable to estimate source first, and
> construct
> the source activities (moment norm, maybe) as 'pseudo-input' to the
> frequency analysis functions for computation of the spectrogram and
> further analysis. I saw one recent paper Gow et al. (2008) NeuroImage
> 43(3):614-623 taking that approach on sources estimated using mne. Is
> there any potential problem if I use sources estimated by lcmv?
>
> Best,
> Feng
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Iversen [mailto:iversen at NSI.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:02 PM
> To: FIELDTRIP at NIC.SURFNET.NL
> Subject: Re: [FIELDTRIP] source localization given induced spectra
>
> Dear Jan-Mathijs,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.  I'm sorry to hear I was right :)
>
> I may misunderstand what you've suggested, but is it not the case that
> if I chose cfg.output='fourier' it will average fourier spectra across
> trials (cares about phase) instead of power spectrum (phase blind, as
> I had been doing). In the end wont I simply get the equivalent of the
> fourier spectrum of the timelock average, which is substantially
> different from the induced spectrum that interests me?
>
> In many cases the sensor topography of the induced power looks
> somewhat dipolar, with two power peaks, so I may well try to do a fit,
> but optimizing not on the field but the field power (this would
> require modifying the output of the forward model within
> dipolefitting)--it will not be able to get the polarity of the dipole,
> but should be able to get a location. Maybe? It seems possible in
> principle, but I wonder if anyone has practical experience with this.
>
> I feel there should be a way to study this kind of question!
>
> Best,
>
> John
>
> On Nov 3, 2008, at 1:18 PM, jan-mathijs schoffelen wrote:
>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> No, it is not possible to perform source localization on the
>> spectrograms as you define them. You quite rightly point out that a
>> spatial topography of power is always positive, so cannot account
>> for a proper dipolar pattern. However, source localization of
>> induced changes in oscillatory activity is possible. There's
>> actually a nice tutorial on the fieldtrip website: "localizing
>> oscillator sources, using beamformer techniques".
>> Alternatively, you can actually call dipolefitting using frequency
>> data as an input, but this requires either fourier-data, or cross-
>> spectral densities between all channel combinations. Usually the
>> fourier-data is more memory efficient. In this case I would propose
>> a two-step strategy: compute spectrograms to identify your time-
>> frequency region(s) of interest. Then call freqanalysis again, with
>> cfg.output = 'fourier'. Then I would guess that dipolefitting runs
>> through... At least it's worth a try.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Jan-Mathijs
>>
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:26 PM, John Iversen wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Is there a way to do source localization on induced spectrograms?
>>> (Induced spectra being the mean of individual trials' power
>>> spectra.) Conceptually I am not sure how this would work, given
>>> that one starts with topographies of real, positive-valued power,
>>> with no phase information, so any dipole fit could be at best sign-
>>> indeterminate.There is no facility within fieldtrip to do such a
>>> thing as far as I can tell (induced spectra were calculated
>>> freqanalysis on multi-trial data and are within the .powspctrm
>>> field of the result, which is not handled by freq2timelock, and
>>> thus cannot feed any of the localization routines).
>>>
>>> What is of actual interest are task-related fluctuations of the
>>> power around a (much larger, and topographically varied) baseline.
>>> Is there a way to say where in the brain are the (presumed) subset
>>> of neural sources that vary in power with time?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> The aim of this list is to facilitate the discussion between users
>>> of the FieldTrip  toolbox, to share experiences and to discuss new
>>> ideas for MEG and EEG analysis. See also
> http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/fieldtrip.html
>>>  and http://www.ru.nl/fcdonders/fieldtrip.
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>> The aim of this list is to facilitate the discussion between users
>> of the FieldTrip  toolbox, to share experiences and to discuss new
>> ideas for MEG and EEG analysis. See also
> http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/fieldtrip.html
>>  and http://www.ru.nl/fcdonders/fieldtrip.
>
> ----------------------------------
> The aim of this list is to facilitate the discussion between users of
> the FieldTrip  toolbox, to share experiences and to discuss new ideas
> for MEG and EEG analysis. See also
> http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/fieldtrip.html and
> http://www.ru.nl/fcdonders/fieldtrip.
>
> ----------------------------------
> The aim of this list is to facilitate the discussion between users
> of the FieldTrip  toolbox, to share experiences and to discuss new
> ideas for MEG and EEG analysis. See also http://listserv.surfnet.nl/
> archives/fieldtrip.html and http://www.ru.nl/fcdonders/fieldtrip.

----------------------------------
The aim of this list is to facilitate the discussion between users of the FieldTrip  toolbox, to share experiences and to discuss new ideas for MEG and EEG analysis. See also http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/fieldtrip.html and http://www.ru.nl/fcdonders/fieldtrip.



More information about the fieldtrip mailing list