Skip to main content

Strategy for Objective Comparisons of Inverse Solutions

  • Conference paper
Biomag 96

Abstract

There is much discussion in the Biomagnetism Community about the differences in and usefulness of ‘dipole solutions* and ‘minimum norm solutions’. By ‘dipole solutions’ we mean the wide variety of procedures that assume the current in the brain is well modeled by a small number of current dipoles, and determine the locations and moment vectors of those dipoles. By ‘minimum norm solutions’ we mean the equally diverse group of procedures that do not assume the source is dipolar, and instead minimize the norm of the current, |J|, or a weighted version of the current. We do not wish to discuss the validity of the assumptions made in order to obtain a dipole or minimum norm Solution. Our goal is a quantitative measure for comparing dipole solutions to minimum norm solutions when the true current source is known. We hope that such an objective measure will lead tö a more fruitful discussion of the usefulness of dipole solutions and minimum norm solutions, although we acknowledge it will not add anything to the discussion about the validity of the assumptions used to obtain the solutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., and Flannery, B.P. Numerical Recipes, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  2. Meijs, J.W.H., Peters, M.J., Boom, H.B.K., and Lopes da Silva, F.H., Relative Influence of Model Assumptions and Measurement Procedures in the Analysis of the MEG, Med. & Biol. Eng. k Comput., 1988, 26: 136–142.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clarke, C.J.S. Probabilistic methods in a biomagnetic inverse problem, Inverse Problems, 1989, 5: 999–1012

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Ioannides, A.A., Bolton, J.P.R., and Clarke, C.J.S. Continuous probabilistic solutions to the biomagnetic inverse problem, Inverse Problems, 1990, 6: 523–542

    Article  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhao, S.-R. and Halling, H. Evaluation of Minimum Norm Methods, to be written

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jeffs, B., Leahy, R., and Singh, M. An Evaluation of Methods for Neuromagnetic Image Reconstruction, IEEE Trans. BME, 1987, BME-34(9):713–723

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this paper

Cite this paper

Schlitt, H.A., Zhao, SR., Halling, H., Müller-Gärtner, H.W. (2000). Strategy for Objective Comparisons of Inverse Solutions. In: Aine, C.J., Stroink, G., Wood, C.C., Okada, Y., Swithenby, S.J. (eds) Biomag 96. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1260-7_80

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1260-7_80

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-7066-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-1260-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics