Biomag 96 pp 274-277 | Cite as

A Comparative Study of Minimum Norm Inverse Methods for MEG Imaging

  • R. M. Leahy
  • J. C. Mosher
  • J. W. Phillips


The majority of MEG imaging techniques currently in use fall into the general class of (weighted) minimum norm methods. The minimization of a norm is used as the basis for choosing one from a generally infinite set of solutions that provide an equally good fit to the data. This ambiguity in the Solution arises from the inherent non-unique-ness of the continuous inverse problem and is compounded by the imbalance between the relatively small number of measurements and the large number of source voxels. Here we present a unified view of the minimum norm methods and describe how we can use Tikhonov regularization to avoid instabilities in the solutions due to noise. We then compare the Performance of regularized versions of three well known linear minimum norm methods [51 [7] with the non-linear iteratively reweighted minimum norm method [11 and a Bayesian approach described in our companion paper (“MEG-based Imaging of Focal Neuronal Current Sources,” Phillips J.W., Leahy R.M., Mosher J.C.).


Minimum Norm Tikhonov Regularization Bayesian Technique Phantom Data Magnetic Source Image 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    I.F. Gorodnitsky, J.S. George, and B.D. Rao, “Neuromagnetic source imaging with FOCUSS: a recursive weighted minimum norm algorithm,” EEG and clinical Neurophysiol., 95, pp. 231–251, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Hämäläinen, R. Hari, et al., “Magnetoencephalography - theory, Instrumentation, and applications to noninva sive studies of the working human brain,” Rev Mod Phys, vol. 65(2), pp. 413–497,1993.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P.C. Hansen, Regularization Tools A Matlab Package for Analysis and Solution of Discrete lll-Posed Problems, available in Postscript from, March 1993
  4. [4]
    B. Jeffs, R.M. Leahy, and M. Singh, “An evaluation of methods for neuromagnetic image reconstruction,” IEEE Trans on Bio. Eng, vol. 34, pp. 713–723, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    R.D. Pascual-Marqui, C.M. Michel, D. Lehmann, “Low resolution electromagnetic tomography: A new method for localizing electrical activity in the brain,” Int. Journ. ofPsyc., vol. 18, pp. 49–65, 1994Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Sarvas, “Basic mathematical and electromagnetic concepts of the biomagnetic inverse problem,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 32, pp. 11–22, 1987.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    J.Z. Wang, S.J. Williamson, and L. Kaufman, “Magnetic Source Images Determined by Lead-Field Analysis: The Unique Minimum-Norm Least-Squares Estimation,” IEEE Trans Bio. Eng., vol. 39 (7), pp. 665–675, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. M. Leahy
    • 1
  • J. C. Mosher
    • 2
  • J. W. Phillips
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Los Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA

Personalised recommendations