Below is a draft piece of text that can be used for describing sLORETA in the “Methods” section of a manuscript. Note that references are included below.
Based on the scalp-recorded electric potential distribution, the standardized low resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA) software (publicly available free academic software at http://www.uzh.ch/keyinst/loreta.htm) was used to compute the cortical three-dimensional distribution of current density. The sLORETA method is a properly standardized discrete, three-dimensional (3D) distributed, linear, minimum norm inverse solution. The particular form of standardization used in sLORETA endows the tomography with the property of exact localization to test point sources, yielding images of standardized current density with exact localization, albeit with low spatial resolution (i.e. neighboring neuronal sources will be highly correlated). The description of the method can be found in [4]. The proof of its exact, zero-error localization property is described in [1] and [2]. It is also important to emphasize that sLORETA has no localization bias even in the presence of measurement and biological noise. In this sense, sLORETA is an improvement over previously developed tomography LORETA [3].
It should be emphasized that the localization properties of any linear 3D inverse solution (i.e. tomography) can always be determined by the localization errors to test point sources. If such a tomography has zero localization error to such point sources located anywhere in the brain, then, except for low spatial resolution, the tomography will localize correctly any arbitrary 3D distribution. This is due to the principles of linearity and superposition. These principles do not apply to non-linear inverse solutions, nor do they apply to schemes that are seemingly linear but are not 3D inverse solutions (e.g. one-at-a-time best fitting dipoles).
The previously developed, related tomography LORETA [3] has received considerable validation from studies combining LORETA with other more established localization methods, such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) [5] and [6], structural MRI [7], Positron Emission Tomography (PET) [8], [9], and [10]. Further LORETA validation has been based on accepting as ground truth the localization findings obtained from invasive, implanted depth electrodes, in which case there are several studies in epilepsy [11], [12], and [13] and cognitive ERPs [14].
In the case of the standardized version sLORETA [4], it is worth emphasizing that two independent groups, [18] and [19], showed that the method has no localization bias in the absence of measurement noise; but in the presence of measurement noise they found that sLORETA has a localization bias. They did not, however, consider the more realistic case where the brain in general is always active, thus producing biological noise. Under these arguably much more realistic conditions (in the presence of both biological and measurement noise), proof was given in [1] demonstrating that sLORETA has no localization bias.
All these results serve also as validation for sLORETA, due to its improved localization properties. It is worth emphasizing that deep structures such as the anterior cingulate cortex [15], and mesial temporal lobes [13] can be correctly localized with these methods.
Furthermore, sLORETA [4] has recently been validated in several simultaneous EEG/fMRI studies [16], [27], and [28], and in an EEG localization study for epilepsy [17].
In the current implementation of sLORETA, computations were made in a realistic head model [25], using the MNI152 template [20], with the three-dimensional solution space restricted to cortical gray matter, as determined by the probabilistic Talairach atlas [24]. The standard electrode positions on the MNI152 scalp were taken from [21] and [22]. The intracerebral volume is partitioned in 6239 voxels at 5 mm spatial resolution. Thus, sLORETA images represent the standardized electric activity at each voxel in neuroanatomic Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) space as the exact magnitude of the estimated current density. Anatomical labels as Brodmann areas are also reported using MNI space, with correction to Talairach space [23].
[1]: Pascual-Marqui, R. D., “Discrete, 3D Distributed, Linear Imaging Methods of Electric Neuronal Activity. Part 1: Exact, Zero Error Localization,” arXiv:0710.3341 [math-ph], October 17, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3341
[2]: Roberto D. Pascual-Marqui: Theory of the EEG Inverse Problem, Chapter 5, pp: 121-140. In: Quantitative EEG Analysis: Methods and Clinical Applications, Eds: S. Tong and N.V. Thakor; 2009 Artech House, Boston
[3]: R.D. Pascual-Marqui, C. M. Michel, and D. Lehmann, “Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography: A New Method for Localizing Electrical Activity in the Brain,” Int. J. Psychophysiol., Vol. 18, 1994, pp. 49-65.
[4]: R.D. Pascual-Marqui, “Standardized Low-Resolution Brain Electromagnetic Tomography (sLORETA): Technical Details,” Methods Findings Exper. Clin. Pharmacol., Vol. 24, Suppl. D, 2002, pp. 5-12.
[5]: Mulert, C., Jäger, L., Schmitt, R., Bussfeld, P., Pogarell, O., Möller, H.J., Juckel, G., Hegerla, U., 2004. Integration of fMRI and simultaneous EEG: towards a comprehensive understanding of localization and time-course of brain activity in target detection. NeuroImage 22, 83-94.
[6]: Vitacco D, Brandeis D, Pascual-Marqui R, Martin E ( 2002): Correspondence of event-related potential tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging during language processing. Hum Brain Mapp 17: 4-12.
[7]: Worrell GA, Lagerlund TD, Sharbrough FW, Brinkmann BH, Busacker NE, Cicora KM, O'Brien TJ, “Localization of the Epileptic Focus by Low-Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography in Patients with a Lesion Demonstrated by MRI,” Brain Topography, Vol. 12, 2000, pp. 273-282.
[8]: Dierks T, Jelic V, Pascual-Marqui RD, Wahlund LO, Julin P, Linden DEJ, Maurer K, Winblad B, Nordberg A: Spatial pattern of cerebral glucose metabolism (PET) correlates with localization of intracerebral EEG-generators in Alzheimer's disease. Clinical Neurophysiology 111: 1817-1824, 2000.
[9]: Pizzagalli DA, Oakes TR, Fox AS, Chung MK, Larson CL, Abercrombie HC, Schaefer SM, Benca RM, Davidson RJ (2004): Functional but not structural subgenual prefrontal cortex abnormalities in melancholia. Mol Psychiatry 9: 393-405.
[10]: Zumsteg D, Wennberg RA, Treyer V, Buck A, Wieser HG, “H2(15)O or 13NH3 PET and Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA) During Partial Status Epilepticus,” Neurology, Vol. 65, 2005, pp. 1657-1660.
[11]: Dominik Zumsteg, Andres M. Lozano, Heinz Gregor Wieser, Richard A. Wennberg, “Cortical Activation with Deep Brain Stimulation of the Anterior Thalamus for Epilepsy,” Clin. Neurophysiol., Vol. 117, 2006, pp. 192-207.
[12]: Zumsteg, D., A. M. Lozano, and R. A. Wennberg, “Depth Electrode Recorded Cerebral Responses with Deep Brain Stimulation of the Anterior Thalamus for Epilepsy,” Clin. Neurophysiol., Vol. 117, 2006, pp. 1602-1609.
[13]: D. Zumsteg, A. Friedman, H.G. Wieser and R.A. Wennberg, Propagation of interictal discharges in temporal lobe epilepsy: correlation of spatiotemporal mapping with intracranial foramen ovale electrode recordings, Clin. Neurophysiol. 117 (2006), pp. 2615-2626.
[14]: U. Volpe, A. Mucci, P. Bucci, E. Merlotti, S. Galderisi and M. Maj, The cortical generators of P3a and P3b: A LORETA study, Brain Research Bulletin 73 (4-6) (2007), pp. 220-230.
[15]: Pizzagalli DA, Pascual-Marqui RD, Nitschke JB, Oakes TR, Larson CL, Abercrombie HC, Schaefer SM, Koger JV, Benca RM, Davidson RJ (2001): Anterior cingulate activity as a predictor of degree of treatment response in major depression: evidence from brain electrical tomography analysis. Am J Psychiatry 158: 405-415.
[16]: S. Olbrich, C. Mulert, S. Karch, M. Trenner, G. Leicht, O. Pogarell and U. Hegerl, EEG-vigilance and BOLD effect during simultaneous EEG/fMRI measurements, NeuroImage 45 (2009), pp. 319-332.
[17]: Rullmann M., Anwander A., Dannhauer M., Warfield S., Duffy F., Wolters C., (2009). EEG source analysis of epileptiform activity using a 1 mm anisotropic hexahedra finite element head model. NeuroImage 44 (2), 399-410
[18]: Sekihara, K., M. Sahani, and S. S. Nagarajan, “Localization Bias and Spatial Resolution of Adaptive and Nonadaptive Spatial Filters for MEG Source Reconstruction,” NeuroImage, Vol. 25, 2005, pp. 1056–1067.
[19]: Greenblatt, R. E., A. Ossadtchi, A., and M. E. Pflieger, “Local Linear Estimators for the Bioelectromagnetic Inverse Problem,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, Vol. 53, 2005, pp. 3403–3412.
[20]: J Mazziotta, A Toga, A Evans, P Fox, J Lancaster, K Zilles, R Woods, T Paus, G Simpson, B Pike, C Holmes, L Collins, P Thompson, D MacDonald, M Iacoboni, T Schormann, K Amunts, N Palomero-Gallagher, S Geyer, L Parsons, K Narr, N Kabani, G Le Goualher, D Boomsma, T Cannon, R Kawashima, and B Mazoyer. A probabilistic atlas and reference system for the human brain: International Consortium for Brain Mapping (ICBM). Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2001 August 29; 356(1412): 1293-1322.
[21]: Valer Jurcak, Daisuke Tsuzuki and Ippeita Dan. 10/20, 10/10, and 10/5 systems revisited: Their validity as relative head-surface-based positioning systems. NeuroImage 2007, 34:1600-1611.
[22]: R. Oostenveld and P. Praamstra. The five percent electrode system for high-resolution EEG and ERP measurements. Clin Neurophysiol, 112:713-719, 2001.
[23]: Brett M. Johnsrude IS. Owen AM. The problem of functional localization in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 3(3):243-249, 2002 Mar.
[24]: Lancaster JL, Woldorff MG, Parsons LM, Liotti M, Freitas CS, Rainey L, Kochunov PV, Nickerson D, Mikiten SA, Fox PT, "Automated Talairach Atlas labels for functional brain mapping". Human Brain Mapping 10:120-131, 2000.
[25]: Fuchs M, Kastner J, Wagner M, Hawes S, Ebersole JS. A standardized boundary element method volume conductor model. Clin Neurophysiol. 2002, 113:702-12.
[27]: Olbrich, S., C. Mulert, S. Karch, M. Trenner, G. Leicht, O. Pogarell, and U. Hegerl, EEG-vigilance and BOLD effect during simultaneous EEG/fMRI measurement. NeuroImage, 2009. 45(2): p. 319-332.
[28]: Mobascher, A., J. Brinkmeyer, T. Warbrick, F. Musso, H.J. Wittsack, R. Stoermer, A. Saleh, A. Schnitzler, and G. Winterer, Fluctuations in electrodermal activity reveal variations in single trial brain responses to painful laser stimuli - A fMRI/EEG study. NeuroImage, 2009. 44(3): p. 1081-1092.