[FieldTrip] BEMCP

[RICHARDS, JOHN]

Deb:

I have had problems with BEMCP.

 1—one of the practical / technical problems is that if the compartments overlap, or even come close, then the procedure would not work—the ft_sourceanlaysis crashed.

 2—There are a couple of studies comparing BEMCP and dipoli, among other methods.  The BEMCP method does not fare well, the dipoli fares better,

E. g., among three or four studies I have seen.
Gramfort, A., et al. (2010). "OpenMEEG: opensource software for quasistatic bioelectromagnetics." Biomed Eng Online 9: 45.

Gramfort, A., et al. (2011). "Forward field computation with OpenMEEG." Comput Intell Neurosci 2011: 923703.

3—I have directly compared BEMCP, a 4-shell concentric spheres, dipoli, and the Simbio FEM model, by correlating results from each model (e.g., correlations of all the dipole CDR estimates; or correlations across anatomical ROIs).  The BEMCP and concentric spheres work similarly, and the dipoli and Simbio-FEM work similarly.   This was with infants using participant-computed realistic models for the compartments and the FEM.

I am not claiming from this and superiority of the dipoli (or FEM) models over the BEMCP, but I suggest looking at the research literature formally comparing these methods before going much further with BEMCP.

John

***********************************************
John E. Richards Carolina Distinguished Professor
Department of Psychology
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC  29208
Dept Phone: 803 777 2079
Fax: 803 777 9558
Email: richards-john at sc.edu<mailto:richards-john at sc.edu>
HTTP: jerlab.psych.sc.edu
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/fieldtrip/attachments/20160312/e9e89dab/attachment.html>