Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Parallel implementation of the accelerated BEM approach for EMSI of the human brain

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Boundary element method (BEM) is one of the numerical methods which is commonly used to solve the forward problem (FP) of electro-magnetic source imaging with realistic head geometries. Application of BEM generates large systems of linear equations with dense matrices. Generation and solution of these matrix equations are time and memory consuming. This study presents a relatively cheap and effective solution for parallel implementation of the BEM to reduce the processing times to clinically acceptable values. This is achieved using a parallel cluster of personal computers on a local area network. We used eight workstations and implemented a parallel version of the accelerated BEM approach that distributes the computation and the BEM matrix efficiently to the processors. The performance of the solver is evaluated in terms of the CPU operations and memory usage for different number of processors. Once the transfer matrix is computed, for a 12,294 node mesh, a single FP solution takes 676 ms on a single processor and 72 ms on eight processors. It was observed that workstation clusters are cost effective tools for solving the complex BEM models in a clinically acceptable time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acar CE (2003) Parallelization of the forward and inverse problems of electromagnetic source imaging of the human brain. Ph.D. thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

  2. Akalın-Acar Z, Gençer NG (2004) An advanced boundary element method implementation for the forward problem of electromagnetic source imaging. Phys Med Biol 49(21):5011–5028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson E, Bai Z, Bischof C, Blackford S, Demmel J, Dongarra J, Du Croz J, Greenbaum A, Hammarling S, McKenney A, Sorensen D (1999) LAPACK users’ guide, 3rd edn. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, PA, ISBN 0-89871-447-8

  4. Baillet S, Mosher JC, Leahy MR (2001) Electromagnetic brain mapping. IEEE Signal Process Mag 18(6):14–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Balay S, Eijkhout V, Gropp WD, McInnes LC, Smith BF (1997) Efficient management of parallelism in object oriented numerical software libraries. In: Arge E, Bruaset AM, Langtangen HP (eds) Modern software tools in scientific computing. Birkhäuser Press, Germany, pp 163–202

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baltz BA, Ingber MS (1997) A parallel implementation of the boundary element method for heat conduction analysis in heterogeneous media. Eng Anal Bound Elem 19:3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barnard AC, Duck IM, Lynn MS (1967) The application of electromagnetic theory to electrocardiology: I. Derivation of the integral equations. Biophys J 7:443–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barnard AC, Duck IM, Lynn MS, Timlake WP (1967) The application of electromagnetic theory to electrocardiology: II. Numerical solution of the integral equations. Biophys J 7:463–491

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barr RC, Pilkington TC, Boineau JP, Spach MS (1966) Determining surface potentials from current dipoles, with application to electrocardiography. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 13:88–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barrett R, Berry M, Chan TF, Demmel J, Donato J, Dongarra J, Eijkhout V, Pozo R, Romine C, Van der Vorst H (1994) Templates for the solution of linear systems: building blocks for iterative methods, 2nd edn. SIAM, Philadelphia. http://www.netlib.org/linalg/html_templates/report.html

  11. Beowulf cluster site http://www.beowulf.org/

  12. Cowper GR (1973) Gaussian quadrature formulas for triangles. Int J Num Methods Eng 7:405–408

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Crouzeix A, Yvert B, Bertrand O, Pernier J (1999) An evaluation of dipole reconstruction accuracy with spherical and realistic head models in MEG. Clin Neurophysiol 110:2176–2188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cuffin BN (1996) EEG localization accuracy improvements using realistically shaped head models. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 44:299–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cuffin BN (1998) EEG dipole source localization. IEEE Eng Med Biol 17(5):118–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. DeMunck JC, van Dijk BW, Spekreijse H (1988) Mathematical dipoles are adequate to describe realistic generators of human brain activity. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 35(11):960–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Frijns JHM, de Snoo SL, Schoonhoven R (2000) Improving the accuracy of the boundary element method by the use of second-order interpolation functions. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 47(10):1336–1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fuchs M, Drenckhahn R, Wischmann HA, Wagner M (1998) An improved boundary element method for realistic volume-conductor modeling. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 45(8):980–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gençer NG, Acar CE, Tanzer IO (2003) Forward problem solution of magnetic source imaging. In: Lu ZL, Kaufman L (eds) Magnetic source imaging of the human brain. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gençer NG, Acar CE (2004) Sensitivity of EEG and MEG measurements to tissue conductivity. Phys Med Biol 49:701–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gençer NG, Tanzer IO (1999) Forward problem solution of electromagnetic source imaging using a new BEM formulation with high-order elements. Phys Med Biol 44:2275–2287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gençer NG, Akalın-Acar Z (2005) Use of the isolated problem approach for multi-compartment BEM models of electro-magnetic source imaging. Phys Med Biol 50:3007–3022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Geselowitz DB (1967) On bioelectric potentials in an inhomogeneous volume conductor. Biophys J 7:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goncalves S, de Munck JC, Verbunt JPA, Heethaar RM, da Silva FHL (2003) In vivo measurement of the brain and skull resistivities using an EIT-based method and realistic models for the head. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 50(6):75467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gropp W, Lusk E, Doss N, Skjellum A (1996) A high-performance, portable implementation of the MPI message passing interface standard. Parallel Comput 22(6):789–828

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. He B (1998) High-resolution source imaging of brain electrical activity. IEEE Eng Med Biol 17(5):123–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. He B, Musha T, Okamoto Y, Homma S, Nakajima Y, Sato T (1987) Electric dipole tracing in the brain by means of the boundary element method and its solution accuracy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 34:406–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Heckbert PS, Garland M (1999) Optimal triangulation and quadric-based surface simplification. Computat Geom 14:49–65

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Hämäläinen MS, Sarvas J (1989) Realistic conductivity geometry model of the human head for interpretation of neuromagnetic data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 36(2):165–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kreienmeyer M, Stein E (1997) Efficient parallel solvers for boundary element equations using data decomposition. Eng Anal Bound Elem 19:33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lai Y, van W. Drongelen, Ding L, Hecox KE, Towle VL, Frim DM, He B, (2005) In vivo human skull conductivity estimation from simultaneous extra- and intra-cranial electrical potential recordings. Clin Neurophysiol 116(2):456–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lawson CL, Hanson RJ, Kincaid D, Krogh FT (1979) Basic linear algebra subprograms for FORTRAN usage. ACM Trans Math Soft 5:308–323

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Lynn MS, Timlake WP (1968) The use of multiple deflations in the numerical solution of singular systems of equations, with applications to potential theory. SIAM J Numer Anal 5:303–322

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Meijs JWH, Weier O, Peters MJ (1989) On the numerical accuracy of the boundary element method. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 36:1038–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mohr M, Vanrumste B (2003) Comparing iterative solvers for linear systems associated with the finite difference discretisation of the forward problem in electro-encephalographic source analysis. Med Biol Eng Comput 41(1):75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mosher JC, Leahy RM, Lewis PS (1999) EEG and MEG: forward solutions for inverse methods. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 46(3):245–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Natarajan R, Krishnaswamy D (1995) A case study in parallel scientific computing: the boundary element method on a distributed-memory multicomputer. In: Proceedings, ACM/IEEE conference on supercomputing

  38. Oostendorp TF, Delbeke J, Stegeman DF (2000) The conductivity of the human skull: results of in vivo and in vitro measurements. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 47(11):1487–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pinto B, Quintao Silva C (2007) A simple method for calculating the depth of EEG sources using minimum norm estimates (MNE). Med Biol Eng Comput 45(7):643–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Poston T, Wong T, Heng P (1998) Multiresolution isosurface extraction with adaptive skeleton climbing. In: Proc. of eurographics ’98, p 17

  41. Rahola J, Tissari S (2002) Iterative solution of dense linear systems arising from the electrostatic integral equation in MEG. Phys Med Biol 47:961–975

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rush S, Driscoll DA (1969) EEG electrode sensitivity-an application of reciprocity. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 16:15–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Saad Y, Schultz MH (1986) GMRES: a generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 7:856–869

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Song SW, Baddour RE (1997) Parallel processing for boundary element computations on distributed systems. Eng Anal Bound Elem 19:73–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stok CJ (1986) The inverse problem in EEG and MEG with application to visual evoked responses, pp 101–117, ISBN 90-70647-06-0

  46. Whaley RC, Petitet A, Dongarra JJ (2001) Automated empirical optimization of software and the ATLAS project. Parallel Comput 27(1–2):3–35

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Wolters CH, Grasedyck L, Hackbusch W (2004) Efficient computation of lead field bases and influence matrix for the FEM-based EEG and MEG inverse problem. Inverse Probl 20:1099–1116

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Zhang Y, van Drongelen W, He B (2006) Estimation of in vivo brain-to-skull conductivity ratio in humans. Appl Phys Lett 89:223903–2239033

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Middle East Technical University Research Fund Projects AFP-98-03-01-03, AFP-2001-03-01-02, BAP-2003-07-02-00-12, and BAP-2004-03-01-03.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. G. Gençer.

Appendix: BEM formulation

Appendix: BEM formulation

The electric potential ϕ and the magnetic field B due to a current dipole source p in a piecewise homogeneous volume conductor model of the head, satisfy the following integral equations [23]:

$$ \bar{\sigma}\phi({{\mathbf{r}}})=g({{\mathbf{r}}})+\frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_{k= 1}^{L} (\sigma_k^{-}-\sigma_k^{+}) \int_{S_k}\phi({{\mathbf{r}}} '){\frac{{\mathbf{R}}} {R^3}}\cdot {\rm d} {{\mathbf{S}}}_k({{\mathbf{r}}} '), $$
(7)
$${{\mathbf{B}}} ({{\mathbf{r}}})= {{\mathbf{B}}}_0({{\mathbf{r}}})+{\frac{\mu_0}{4\pi}}\sum_{k=1}^{L} (\sigma_k^{-}-\sigma_k^{+})\int_{S_k}\phi({{\mathbf{r}}} '){\frac{{{\mathbf{R}}}} {R^3}}\times {\rm d} {{\mathbf{S}}}_k({{\mathbf{r}}} '). $$
(8)

Here, the surfaces between different conductivity regions are denoted by S k , k = 1...L. The inner and outer conductivities of S k are represented by σ k and σ + k , respectively. R = rr′ is the vector between the field point r and the source point r′, and \(\bar{\sigma}\) is the mean conductivity at the field point. The contribution of the primary sources, g and B 0, are defined as follows:

$$g({{\mathbf{r}}})=\frac{1}{4\pi\sigma_0} \frac{ {{\mathbf{p}}}\cdot{{\mathbf{R}}}} {R^3}, $$
(9)
$${{\mathbf{B}}}_0({{\mathbf{r}}})= {\frac{\mu_0}{4\pi}}{\frac{{{\mathbf{p}}}\times{{\mathbf{R}}}} {R^3}}, $$
(10)

where σ 0 is the unit conductivity and μ 0 is the permeability of the free space. Equations (7) and (8) can be solved numerically by dividing the surfaces into elements and computing the surface integrals over these elements [79, 23]. The surface elements used in this study are triangular, quadratic and isoparametric. Using (7) for all nodes and integrating over all elements, a set of equations with N unknowns can be obtained (here N denotes the number of nodes in the BEM mesh). In matrix notation, this can be expressed as:

$$\begin{aligned} &\Phi = {{\mathbf{g}}}+{{\mathbf{C}}}\Phi \\ &({{\mathbf{I}}}-{{\mathbf{C}}})\Phi = {{\mathbf{g}}} \\ &{{\mathbf{A}}}\Phi = {{\mathbf{g}}} \\ \end{aligned}$$
(11)

where Φ is an N × 1 vector of node potentials, C is an N × N matrix whose elements are determined by the geometry and electrical conductivity of the head and g is an N × 1 vector representing the contribution of the primary sources. Φ is then obtained as:

$$ \Phi = {{\mathbf{A}}}^{-1}{{\mathbf{g}}} $$
(12)

To eliminate the singularity in the coefficient matrix A, the method of matrix deflation is employed [33]. IPA is implemented to overcome numerical errors caused by high conductivity difference around the skull layer [29]. Once Φ is computed, B is calculated from the potential values using (8). In matrix notation this can be written as follows:

$${{\mathbf{B}}}={{\mathbf{B}}}_{{\mathbf{0}}}+{{\mathbf{H}}}\Phi $$
(13)

If the number of magnetic sensors is m, B is an m × 1 vector representing the magnetic fields at the sensor locations, and B 0 denotes the m × 1 vector of magnetic fields at the same sensor locations for an unbounded homogeneous medium. Here, H is an m × N coefficient matrix determined by the geometry and electrical conductivity of the head.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ataseven, Y., Akalın-Acar, Z., Acar, C.E. et al. Parallel implementation of the accelerated BEM approach for EMSI of the human brain. Med Biol Eng Comput 46, 671–679 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-008-0316-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-008-0316-0

Keywords

Navigation