Abstract
Reconstructing EEG sources involves a complex pipeline, with the inverse problem being the most challenging. Multiple inversion algorithms are being continuously developed, aiming to tackle the non-uniqueness of this problem, which has been shown to be partially circumvented by also including fMRI-derived spatial priors in the inverse models. However, only task activation maps and resting-state networks (RSNs) have been explored so far, overlooking the recent, but already accepted, notion that brain networks exhibit dynamic functional connectivity (dFC) fluctuations. Moreover, there is no consensus regarding the inversion algorithm of choice, nor a systematic comparison between different sets of spatial priors. Using simultaneous EEG-fMRI data, here we compared four different inversion algorithms (MN, LORETA, EBB and MSP) under a Bayesian framework, each with three different sets of priors consisting of: 1) those specific to the algorithm (S1); 2) S1 plus fMRI task activation maps and RSNs (S2); and 3) S2 plus network modules of task-related dFC states estimated from the dFC fluctuations (S3). The quality of the reconstructed EEG sources was quantified in terms of model-based metrics, namely the free-energy and variance explained of the inversion models, and the overlap/proportion of brain regions known to be involved in the visual perception tasks that the participants were submitted to, and RSN templates, with/within EEG source components. Model-based metrics suggested that model parsimony is preferred, with the combination MSP+S1 exhibiting the best performance. However, optimal overlap/proportion values were found using EBB+S2 or MSP+S3, respectively, indicating that fMRI spatial priors, including dFC state modules, are crucial for the EEG source components to reflect neuronal activity of interest. Our results pave the way towards a more informative selection of the optimal EEG source reconstruction approach, which may be crucial in future studies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.