Abstract
Objective Idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) is characterized by marked brain network alterations as assessed using electrophysiology. The clinical application of high-density EEG or MEG is often hindered by logistical challenges and the need for a volumetric MRI. This study investigates how EEG channel density and the head model influence brain metrics in individuals with IGE versus controls ranging from 256-channel high-density EEG to 19-channel routine EEG.
Methods Resting-state EEG data from 35 individuals with IGE and 54 healthy controls were collected using a 256-channel setup. Data were analyzed at full density and then iteratively down-sampled to lower densities. Source reconstruction was performed either using individual MRI data or a standard brain template. We assessed EEG power and connectivity group differences at all channel compositions, head model types, and parcellations (cortical vertices, anatomical and network parcellations). Additionally, a clinical sample recorded with 19 channels was analyzed to validate findings in a real epilepsy monitoring scenario (71 patients, 43 controls).
Results Lower-density arrays reliably identified global group differences for both power and connectivity and in frequency bands for which the strongest effects were observed. The spatial similarity of the results for the 256 channels set and those with less channels were good to moderate for power (rspin ~0.97 to 0.33), but dropped for connectivity with less than 64 channels (rspin ~0.78 to −0.12). Comparing individual and canonical head models revealed consistent effects (rspin ~0.77 to 0.5), with coarser brain parcellations increasing stability for low-density maps.
Significance Low-density EEG arrays suffice for detecting global alterations in IGE, particularly in signal power. For precision-critical contexts and complex metrics such as connectivity, high-density setups are beneficial. Canonical head models are a viable alternative if no individual MRI is available, especially for regional-or network-level assessments.
Highlights
- Averaged EEG power and connectivity alterations in IGE are detectable with low-density EEG
- High-density EEG improves spatial accuracy of connectivity estimates
- Individual and canonical head models produce comparable group effects on EEG metrics, especially when using anatomical and network parcellations
- Our findings advocate for leveraging clinical EEG for network analyses in IGE while emphasizing the need for high-density coverage if spatial precision is needed
Competing Interest Statement
N.K.F. has received honoraria and travel support from Angelini, Bial, Eisai and Precisis and research support from Jazz Pharma. H.L. received honoraria for speaking or consulting from Angelini, Bial, Eisai, Lario, Praxis, Stada, UCB, and Zogenix, and research support from Bial and Lario. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by the German Research Foundation (FO 750/5-1 to N.K.F.).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The local ethics committee of the Medical Faculties of the Universities in Tuebingen (ethics number 646/2011BO1) and Goettingen (ethics number 16/10/17) gave ethical approval for two study samples. For the third sample, the ethics committee of the University of Goettingen waived ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant study results are available from the corresponding author upon request. Raw imaging and electrophysiological data are not publicly available due to data protection regulations.
