the method of fundamental solutions in solving coupled boundary value problems...
TRANSCRIPT
The Method of Fundamental Solutions in SolvingCoupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG
Salvatore [email protected]
DEIM, University of Palermo, Italy
Joint work with G. Ala, G. Fasshauer, E. Francomano and M. McCourt
MAIA 2013Erice, 25-30 September, 2013
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 0 / 21
Outline
1 Problem Formulation
2 State of the Art and Motivation
3 Methodology
4 Numerical Results
5 Conclusions
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 0 / 21
Problem Formulation
Background
What are EEG and MEG?EEG and MEG are two electromagnetic techniques for brain activityinvestigation, i.e. to locate active neural sources
How they work?Neural sources (location and amplitude) are reconstructed starting frommeasurements of electric potential on the scalp (EEG) or magnetic fieldnear the head (MEG). This is a typical inverse problem.
What is needed to perform them?
1 A data set (measurements)2 An inverse algorithm3 An efficient and accurate forward solver
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 1 / 21
Problem Formulation
Model for the Head
Brain (Ω1) Skull (Ω2)
Scalp (Ω3)
Figure 1 : Compartment modelfor the head
The head can be modeled as a linear,piecewise homogeneous, volume con-ductor domain Ω ⊂ R3 formed by Lnested layers.Let p be a point in Ω.
A model with three layers (L = 3) iscommon: brain, skull and scalp.
Let Ω` and ∂Ω` be the `-th layer in thedomain Ω, with known conductivity σ`,and its boundary, respectively.
The medium surrounding the head is theair and it can be considered as an un-bounded region of null electrical conduc-tivity.
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 2 / 21
Problem Formulation
Electromagnetic Modeling of the Brain Activity
The forward problem for the electric potential φ(p) can be formulatedas the following BVP:
σ`(p)∇2φ(p) = S`(p), p ∈ Ω`
φ(p−) = φ(p+), p ∈ ∂Ω` ∩ ∂Ω`+1
σ`n(p) · ∇φ(p−) = σ`+1n(p) · ∇φ(p+), p ∈ ∂Ω` ∩ ∂Ω`+1
where:
S`(p) =
∇ · (Qδ(p− p′)) neural source in p′ ∈ Ω`
0 otherwise
n(p) is the outward unit vector normal to the interface ∂Ω` ∩ ∂Ω`+1
at p
p− and p+ are limit points for two spatial sequences converging to pfrom inside and from outside the interface, respectively
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 3 / 21
Problem Formulation
Electromagnetic Modeling of the Brain Activity
The forward problem for the magnetic field can be formulated startingfrom the forward problem for the electric potential.
In fact, the Maxwell’s equations yield:
∇2B(p) = −µ∇× J(p) (1)
where B(p) is the magnetic induction, µ is the permeability of the mediumand the current density J(p) is known once φ(p) is known.
The solution of (1) with condition of null magnetic field at infinite distancefrom sources, is known as Ampere-Laplace law [Sarvas (1987)]:
B(p) = − µ
4π
∫Ωσ(p∗)∇φ(p∗)× p− p∗
‖p− p∗‖3dΩ∗
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 4 / 21
State of the Art and Motivation
State of the Art
Finite Element Method
Domain method → 3D meshes
Very costly
Boundary Element Method
Boundary method → 2D meshes
Comparable to FEM in accuracy [Adde et al. (2003)]
Implemented in popular toolboxes for EEG/MEGanalysis, e.g. FieldTrip [Oostenveld et al. (2011)],Brainstorm [Tadel et al. (2011)].
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 5 / 21
State of the Art and Motivation
Motivation
Drawbacks of the state of the art solvers:
1 High quality meshes are needed to avoid mesh-related artifacts inreconstructed neural activation patterns
2 Mesh generation is a complex and time consuming pre-processingtask, even with automatic algorithms
3 Numerical integration is required and turns out to be the dominatingcomputational task in the process
4 Complex computer codes (not flexible).
What could be done to overcome these difficulties?
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 6 / 21
State of the Art and Motivation
Motivation
The Method of Particular Solutions (MPS) allows for the application of theMethod of Fundamental Solutions (MFS)
1 Boundary-type method, like BEM
2 No meshing is required: ability to handle complex geometries in aneasy way
3 No numerical integration is required
4 Accuracy: potential for exponential convergence with smooth data anddomains [Cheng (1987); Katsurada (1994); Katsurada and Okamoto(1996)]
5 Flexibility: easy implementation
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 7 / 21
Methodology
The underlying idea
The MFS is a kernel-based method, introduced during 60’s [Kupradze andAleksidze (1964a,b); Kupradze (1967)]Let’s consider a homogeneous elliptic PDE of the form:
Lu(p) = 0, p ∈ Ω ⊆ R3 (2)
Like BEM, MFS is applicable when a fundamental solution of the PDE isknown.
Definition – Fundamental solution
A fundamental solution of the PDE (2) a function K(p, q) such thatLK(p, q) = −δ(p− q), p, q ∈ R3
q is called the singularity point (or source point) of the fundamental solutionsince K is defined everywhere except there, where it is singular.
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 8 / 21
Methodology
The underlying idea
The idea of the MFS is to estimate the solution by means of a linear com-bination of fundamental solutions of the governing PDE:
u(p) ≈ u(p) =
#Ξ∑j=1
cjK(p, ξj), p ∈ Ω, ξj ∈ Ξ (3)
were Ξ is a set of source points placed on a fictitious boundary outsidethe physical domain.The coefficients cj have to be determined by imposing (3) to satisfy theboundary conditions:
T u(p) = f∂Ω(p), p ∈ ∂Ω
at a set P of collocation points:
#Ξ∑j=1
cjTK(pi, ξj) = f∂Ω(pi) pi ∈ P, ξj ∈ Ξ (4)
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 9 / 21
Methodology
Inhomogeneous problems
Let’s consider an inhomogeneous BVP of the form:Lu(p) = fΩ(p), p ∈ Ω ⊆ R3
T u(p) = f∂Ω(p), p ∈ ∂Ω(5)
It can be reduced to a homogeneous problem by the Method of Particular Solutions(MPS), i.e. by splitting u into a particular solution up and its associated homogeneoussolution uh:
u = uh + up
Definition – Particular solution
A particular solution of the BVP (5) is a function up on Ω ∪ ∂Ω which satisfies theinhomogeneous PDE but not necessarily the boundary conditions.
Then we get the homogenous BVP:Luh(p) = fΩ(p)− Lup(p) = 0, p ∈ Ω
T uh(p) = f∂Ω(p)− T up(p), p ∈ ∂Ω
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 10 / 21
Methodology
Application to the EEG potential problem
Let’s apply the MFS, via MPS, to the EEG potential problem.
1 The fundamental solution for the Laplace equation in 3D is:
K(p, q) =1
4π‖p− q‖
2 An analytical expression for a function φp(p) that satisfies the equation
σ∇2φ(p) = ∇ · (Qδ(p− p′))
in an unbounded domain is known [Sarvas (1987)]:
φp(p) =1
4πσ
p− p′
‖p− p′‖3·Q
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 11 / 21
Methodology
Application to the EEG potential problem
Brain (Ω1) Skull (Ω2)
Scalp (Ω3)
The EEG potential problem in Ω can be addressed byconsidering a number L of coupled BVPs interactingthrough the boundary conditions.By introducing the parameter
α` =
1, neural source in Ω`
0, otherwise
the potential function in each layer can be expressed as:
φ`(p) = φh,`(p) + α`φp,`(p)
φh,` is given by the solution of the following homogeneous BVP:∇2φh,`(p) = 0, p ∈ Ω`
φh,`(p)− φh,`+1(p) = α`+1φp,`+1(p)− α`φp,`(p), p ∈ ∂Ω` ∩ ∂Ω`+1
σ`n(p) · ∇φh,`(p)− σ`+1n(p) · ∇φh,`+1(p) =
= α`+1σ`+1n(p) · ∇φp,`+1(p)− α`σ`n(p) · ∇φp,`(p) p ∈ ∂Ω` ∩ ∂Ω`+1
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 12 / 21
Methodology
Application to the EEG potential problem
The homogeneous solution is approximated by:
φh,`(p) =
#Ξ∑j=1
c`jK(p, ξj), p ∈ Ω`, ξj ∈ Ξ` (6)
where Ξ` is the set of source points relative to the layer Ω`.
In order to estimate the L sets of coefficients c`L`=1, the collocationhas to be performed on each interface.
Let PD`,`+1 and PN`,`+1 be the sets of collocation points on the interfacebetween the layer ` and the layer `+ 1 where Dirichlet conditions andNeumann conditions, respectively, are intended to be imposed.
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 13 / 21
Methodology
Application to the EEG potential problemThe collocation yields the following coupled linear system:
D11,2 D2
1,2
N11,2 N2
1,2
D22,3 D3
2,3
N22,3 N3
2,3
. . .
D``,`+1 D`+1
`,`+1
N``,`+1 N`+1
`,`+1
. . .
DL−1L−1,L DL
L−1,L
NL−1L−1,L NL
L−1,L
NLL,L+1
c1
c2
.
.
.c`
.
.
.cL−1
cL
=
bD1,2bN1,2bD2,3bN2,3...
bD`,`+1
bN`,`+1
.
.
.bDL−1,L
bNL−1,L
bNL,L+1
(D``,`+1)ij = K(pi, ξj) pi ∈ P
D`,`+1, ξj ∈ Ξ`
(D`+1`,`+1
)ij = −K(pi, ξj) pi ∈ PD`,`+1, ξj ∈ Ξ`+1
(N``,`+1)ij = σ`n(pi) · ∇K(pi, ξj) pi ∈ P
N`,`+1, ξj ∈ Ξ`
(N`+1`,`+1
)ij = −σ`+1n(pi) · ∇K(pi, ξj) pi ∈ PN`,`+1, ξj ∈ Ξ`+1
(bD`,`+1)i = α`+1φp,`+1(pi)− α`φp,`(pi) pi ∈ P
D`,`+1
(bN`,`+1)i = α`+1σ`+1n(pi) · ∇φp,`+1(pi)− α`σ`n(pi) · ∇φp,`(pi) pi ∈ P
N`,`+1
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 14 / 21
Numerical Results Homogeneous Sphere
Simulation data
Homogeneous sphereAnalytical solution in [Yao (2000)]Problem data:
Sphere radius: 0.1 m
Conductivity: 0.2 S/m
Source position: (0, 0, 0.06) [m]
Source moment: (1, 0, 0) [Am]
Simulations with different ratios RMFS between the no. source points andthe number of collocation points
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 15 / 21
Numerical Results Homogeneous Sphere
Convergence
103
10-12
10-10
10-8
10-6
10-4
10-2
100
Current Dipole in Homogeneus Sphere - Convergence test
Total Collocation Points or Elements
Rel
ativ
e E
rro
r o
n S
urf
ace
Po
ten
tial
Symmetric BEMMFS, R
MFS =0.8
MFS, RMFS
=0.4
MFS, RMFS
=0.2
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 16 / 21
Numerical Results Homogeneous Sphere
Cost vs. Relative Error
10-12
10-10
10-8
10-6
10-4
10-2
100
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
Current Dipole in Homogeneus Sphere - Cost per Accuracy
Relative Error on Surface Potential
CP
U T
ime
[s]
Symmetric BEMMFS, R
MFS =0.8
MFS, RMFS
=0.4
MFS, RMFS
=0.2
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 17 / 21
Numerical Results Three layered Sphere
Simulation data
Three layered sphereSemi-analytical solution in [Zhang (1995)]Problem data:
Sphere radii: R1 = 0.087 m, R2 = 0.092 m, R3 = 0.1 m
Conductivities: σ1 = 0.33 S/m, σ2 = 0.0125 S/m, σ3 = 0.33 S/m
Source position: (0, 0, 0.052) [m]
Source moment: (1, 0, 0) [Am]
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 18 / 21
Numerical Results Three layered Sphere
Convergence
103
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
Current Dipole in Three Layered Sphere - Convergence test
Total Collocation Points or Elements
Rel
ativ
e E
rro
r o
n S
urf
ace
Po
ten
tial
Symmetric BEMMFS, R
MFS =0.8
MFS, RMFS
=0.4
MFS, RMFS
=0.2
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 19 / 21
Numerical Results Three layered Sphere
Cost vs. Relative Error
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
Current Dipole in Three Layered Sphere - Cost per Accuracy
Relative Error on Surface Potential
CP
U T
ime
[s]
Symmetric BEMMFS, R
MFS =0.8
MFS, RMFS
=0.4
MFS, RMFS
=0.2
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 20 / 21
Conclusions
Conclusions
1 The MFS via MPS has been proposed to address the EEG/MEG forwardproblem
2 This permits to get rid of complex and time consuming meshing algo-rithms, mesh related artifacts and troublesome numerical integration
3 The implementation of the presented method is straightforward: unlikeBEM solvers, the code is very flexible
4 Simulations results for simplified head geometries showed:
very good agreement with (semi)analytic solutionsclear superiority with respect to BEM from a cost vs. accuracystandpoint
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 21 / 21
References
References I
Adde, G., Clerc, M., Faugeras, O., Keriven, R., Kybic, J., and Papadopoulo,T. (2003). Symmetric bem formulation for the m/eeg forward problem.In Taylor, C. and Noble, J., editors, Information Processing in MedicalImaging, volume 2732 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 524–535. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Cheng, R. (1987). Delta-trigonometric and spline methods using the single-layer potential representation. PhD thesis, University of Maryland.
Katsurada, M. (1994). Charge simulation method using exterior mappingfunctions. Japan journal of industrial and applied mathematics, 11(1):47–61.
Katsurada, M. and Okamoto, H. (1996). The collocation points of thefundamental solution method for the potential problem. Computers &Mathematics with Applications, 31(1):123–137.
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 1 / 3
References
References II
Kupradze, V. (1967). On the approximate solution of problems in mathe-matical physics. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 22:58–108.
Kupradze, V. and Aleksidze, M. (1964a). A method for the approximatesolution of limiting problems in mathematical physics. U.S.S.R. Compu-tational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 4:199–205.
Kupradze, V. and Aleksidze, M. (1964b). The method of functional equa-tions for the approximate solution of certain boundary value problems.U.S.S.R. Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 4:82–126.
Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., and Schoffelen, J. (2011). Fieldtrip:open source software for advanced analysis of meg, eeg, and invasiveelectrophysiological data. Computational intelligence and neuroscience,2011:1.
Sarvas, J. (1987). Basic mathematical and electromagnetic concepts of thebiomagnetic inverse problem. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 32(1):11.
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 2 / 3
References
References III
Tadel, F., Baillet, S., Mosher, J., Pantazis, D., and Leahy, R. (2011). Brain-storm: a user-friendly application for meg/eeg analysis. Computationalintelligence and neuroscience, 2011:8.
Yao, D. (2000). Electric potential produced by a dipole in a homoge-neous conducting sphere. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering,47(7):964–966.
Zhang, Z. (1995). A fast method to compute surface potentials generatedby dipoles within multilayer anisotropic spheres. Physics in Medicine andBiology, 40(3):335.
S. Ganci The Method of Fundamental Solutions in Solving Coupled Boundary Value Problems for EEG/MEG 3 / 3