Source localization with template MRI + template digitization or MRI data without digitization?

đź’¬ Support & Discussions
, ,
1

I just finished reading #7141 and #7472. For now, I guess 'standard_1020' montage still refers to the realistic montage producing worst 2D topographic plots and better source modeling.

As pointed out, people do source modeling with template montage and template MRI; and I was planning in doing so. In my mind, precise source modeling requires both an MRI scan and digitization of the location of the electrodes on the head of the subject at the recording time.
I do not have the second, but I do have MRI scans for every subject.

Am I correct in assuming that computing the coregistration between the realistic standard 10/20 montage and the actual subject MRI instead of using 'fsaverage' would be beneficial to the source modeling even though the montage does not contain the exact sensor location?

Note: Each subject had 15 recording sessions. Even intra-subject, the position of the sensors is not exactly the same at every session. This is why I am not sure it is worth investing time in creating the BEM and the coregistration.

Thanks for your opinion!

2

Hello, I don’t have any data to support this claim, but I’d always assume that the more realistic the data you have, the better your models will be, as they will be able to account for larger quantities of variability in the data. This means that I’d suggest to definitely make use of the individual MR scans if you have them.

If the caps were places carefully, placement variability across sessions shouldn’t be too high, so I’d assume that using the standard montage would yield sufficiently good results (depending on your specific research question, of course).