[Eeglablist] Source localization and hippocanpus

[Makoto Miyakoshi]

Hi Marjan,

Thank you for your explanation. Yes, I remember your implementation.

I also recognize that this approach should not be described as anatomical
source localization. A more precise description would be an
electrode-informed regional representation of ICA components, and I will
revise the manuscript accordingly.


That is it.
So my comment was probably missing the point for you, sorry about that.

That said, as a general comment, which I believe is still noteworthy, is
that I'm not saying that ICA + dipole fitting is wrong. As long as the
result is treated as a model with unclear scale, that is fine. If it claims
physiological validity, then the validity of the dipole moment must be
examined.


Makoto


On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 1:08 PM m za <ma.zamani.20 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Makoto and colleagues,
>
> Thank you for the detailed critique. It helped me identify an important
> distinction that I should make more explicitly.
>
> My current method does not estimate an IC dipole location, orientation, or
> physical dipole moment, and it does not interpret ICA component weights in
> absolute physical units. Instead, channel coordinates are first used to
> define electrode-based regional groups. The scalp projection of each IC is
> then summarized within these groups to obtain a relative regional weight
> profile, which is thresholded and used to construct regional time-series
> representations.
>
> Therefore, I agree that ICA scaling ambiguity would invalidate any attempt
> to interpret these weights as physical dipole strength. That is not the
> intended interpretation of my method. The resulting signals are used as
> data-driven, electrode-informed regional representations for downstream
> connectivity analysis, rather than as quantitatively localized or
> physically calibrated sources.
>
> I also recognize that this approach should not be described as anatomical
> source localization. A more precise description would be an
> electrode-informed regional representation of ICA components, and I will
> revise the manuscript accordingly.
>
> Thank you again for raising this issue. It has helped me clarify both the
> scope and the limitations of the method.
>
> Best regards,
> Marjan Zamani
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 9:17 AM Makoto Miyakoshi via eeglablist <
> eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yevgeny, Cedric, and Marjan,
>>
>> Thank you for your comments!
>>
>> I published the L-EEGibility Atlas on Github and Zenodo.
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/MakotoMiyakoshi/L-EEGibility-Atlas/tree/main__;!!Mih3wA!AF89gXQ_Bw1a_fYT3Lwj_tIHdNTuHFcI9VNexSVkbRNU_Eu6Hws2v5AeyUpAd909X_XItKDCYj7xKhNs_QtbXMho29w$
>>
>> I also submitted it to the EEGLAB plugin request.
>>
>> There was a bug in code, so the initially reported L hippocampal source
>> contribution is updated from 1.649 to 2.009 microV.
>>
>> For Yevgeny,
>>
>> However, the conclusion regarding whether signals from the hippocampus can
>> be recorded on the scalp relies on several assumptions, and these can be
>> challenged. The first is that the source is necessarily a dipole.
>>
>>
>> I do not understand this. An n-pole model is just a model. You choose
>> which
>> model to fit, not the brain uses it. Do I miss something?
>>
>> The second is that it is a single dipole, not a set of synchronized
>> dipoles
>> distributed over a certain area and similarly oriented.
>>
>>
>> Typically, a single dipole model may be used because there is no monopole
>> (current conservation) and rapid delay of > quadru-poles for scalp EEG
>> recording. For intracranial invasive, things are different.
>>
>> 1. In addition to the dipole component, a monopole component also
>> contributes to the EEG.
>>
>>
>> Invasive brain recording may capture near-DC electrodiffusive
>> neuron-extracellular-glia (edNEG) current, for example, between dendritic
>> and somatic areas (Halnes et al, there are many of them). But this
>> edNEG-caused potential field does not propagate. edNEG is a potential
>> field, not a current source.
>>
>> Likewise, the potential from a system of quadrupoles can propagate over a
>> greater distance than from a single dipole.
>>
>>
>> I'm curious if this can really happen. It's certainly different from what
>> I
>> learned. I think the point is the word 'a system of quadrupoles' What
>> system could it be, like an array formed?
>>
>> For Cedric,
>>
>>
>> 1) why not including subiculum?
>>
>> I do not know why the subiculum is usually not counted as a part of the
>> hippocampus proper.
>>
>>
>> 2) is this only using dipole fitting tools? what about other methods like
>> eLoreta or LCMV beamforming?
>>
>> No, it is not a dipole fitting tool. It's a leadfield model calculated
>> from
>> Colin27 + original hippocampus BEM model.
>> The left hippocampus alone (CA1-4) has 5771 vertices.
>>
>>
>> -> I'm surprised, I remember clearly the Colin atlas having the hippocampi
>> included when using the ROIconnect plugin for LCMV beamforming, which I
>> had
>> to exclude in the code as I suspected it was not reliable, but it was
>> there.
>>
>>
>> This is from Destrieux et al. (2010): "Using this process, each vertex of
>> the cortical surface was assigned to an anatomical label from the name
>> database. On the midline an area labeled Medial_wall grouped structures
>> not
>> involved by the inflation process, including the hippocampus, thalamus,
>> ventricles, and corpus callosum." I'm sure there are multiple
>> Colin27-based
>> atlases. The Destrieux Atlas does not have hippocampi.
>>
>> -> is a single subject head model the way to go for validating this kind
>> of
>> thing? aren't the findings vulnerable to be specific to this person only?
>>
>>
>> Yes, otherwise you won't see clearly defined sulci. I wanted to evaluate
>> cancellations of EEG signals due to cortical folding. The finding is
>> biased
>> to Dr. Colin's brain, yes, but an averaged brain does not have clearly
>> defined sulci. The Destrieux Atlas comes with annotations for all gyri and
>> sulci.
>>
>> For Marjan,
>>
>> My approach is bottom-up: starting from empirical scalp EEG, each ICA
>> component is given a regional score based on its scalp-weight distribution
>> and is assigned to an anatomical ROI if it meets the assignment criterion.
>>
>> IC is not a physical entity. It's just a model.
>> An interesting question is, if ICs can ever touch the ground truth of EEG,
>> how can it be verified?
>>
>>
>> Your approach is top-down: starting from an assumed ROI-level source, the
>> forward-projected scalp amplitude is evaluated against a detectability
>> threshold.
>>
>> No, it is bottom up. It does not start from ROI-level sources, but BEM
>> mesh
>> vertices.
>> The leadfield matrix of the L-EEGibility Atlas is 343 (ch) x 15002
>> (vertices) for the original Destrieux Atlas, plus 343 (ch) x 9308
>> (vertices) for hippocampi (I know these hippocampi are mapped too
>> densely).
>> So there are 24310 dipoles projecting to 343 scalp electrodes.
>>
>> One more interesting thing. Your ICA-based approach cannot maintain the
>> meaning of the measurement unit (V).
>> ICs are often associated with a single dipole model, but what does its
>> dipole moment mean physically? Delorme et al. (2012) discussed 'residual
>> variance' as a quantifier, but it is not a physical quantity! Unknown
>> nature of IC-dipole moment has been the biggest weak point of the
>> physiological interpretation of ICA (See also EFB p82-83 for the related
>> criticism.)
>>
>> Makoto
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 8:50 PM m za <ma.zamani.20 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi ,
>> >
>> >  Reading this, I noticed an interesting structural parallel with the
>> > ROI-assignment step in the pipeline I shared last month, although the
>> > direction and the scientific question are different. My approach is
>> > bottom-up: starting from empirical scalp EEG, each ICA component is
>> given a
>> > regional score based on its scalp-weight distribution and is assigned
>> to an
>> > anatomical ROI if it meets the assignment criterion. Your approach is
>> > top-down: starting from an assumed ROI-level source, the
>> forward-projected
>> > scalp amplitude is evaluated against a detectability threshold. So, in
>> both
>> > cases, a quantitatively defined regional measure is compared with a
>> > criterion to support a decision, but the decision target differs—ROI
>> > attribution in my pipeline versus scalp detectability in yours. I
>> thought
>> > that was a neat and potentially complementary parallel, but I would be
>> > interested to hear whether you see it differently.
>> >
>> > Marjan Zamani
>> >
>> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 12:18 AM Cedric Cannard via eeglablist <
>> > eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Makoto,
>> >>
>> >> Exciting development. Thanks for working on this, I've always thought
>> it
>> >> is a big gap in the EEG field to have such questions unanswered.
>> >>
>> >> Quick curiosity questions:
>> >> 1) why not including subiculum?
>> >> 2) is this only using dipole fitting tools? what about other methods
>> like
>> >> eLoreta or LCMV beamforming?
>> >> 3) "Destrieux Atlas is based on Colin27, which is a single-subject head
>> >> model and has annotated gyri and sulci. But it does not come with
>> >> hippocampi. So I used HippUnfold (DeKraker et al., 2022, 2023) to
>> >> auto-demarcate hippocampi on the Destrieux Atlas."
>> >>
>> >> -> I'm surprised, I remember clearly the Colin atlas having the
>> >> hippocampi included when using the ROIconnect plugin for LCMV
>> beamforming,
>> >> which I had to exclude in the code as I suspected it was not reliable,
>> but
>> >> it was there.
>> >>
>> >> -> is a single subject head model the way to go for validating this
>> kind
>> >> of thing? aren't the findings vulnerable to be specific to this person
>> only?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cedric
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
>> >>
>> >> On Friday, August 21st, 2026 at 1:00 PM, Cedric Cannard <
>> >> ccannard at protonmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Makoto,
>> >> >
>> >> > Exciting development. Thanks for working on this, I've always thought
>> >> it is a big gap in the EEG field to have such questions unanswered.
>> >> >
>> >> > Quick curiosity questions:
>> >> > 1) why not including subiculum?
>> >> > 2) is this only using dipole fitting tools? what about other methods
>> >> like eLoreta or LCMV beamforming?
>> >> > 3) "Destrieux Atlas is based on Colin27, which is a single-subject
>> head
>> >> model and has annotated gyri and sulci. But it does not come with
>> >> hippocampi. So I used HippUnfold (DeKraker et al., 2022, 2023) to
>> >> auto-demarcate hippocampi on the Destrieux Atlas."
>> >> >
>> >> > -> I'm surprised, I remember clearly the Colin atlas having the
>> >> hippocampi included when using the ROIconnect plugin for LCMV
>> beamforming,
>> >> which I had to exclude in the code as I suspected it was not reliable,
>> but
>> >> it was there.
>> >> >
>> >> > -> Are you sure using an automated method like HippUnfold is fully
>> >> reliable?
>> >> >
>> >> > -> is a single subject head model the way to go for validating this
>> >> kind of thing? aren't the findings vulnerable to be specific to this
>> person
>> >> only?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Cedric
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Friday, August 21st, 2026 at 10:48 AM, Евгений Машеров via
>> >> eeglablist <eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > First of all, thank you very much for this fascinating and
>> important
>> >> work.
>> >> > > The threshold for EEG amplitude that allows signal registration,
>> 1.65
>> >> μV, seems reasonable. By comparison, when diagnosing brain death, an
>> >> amplitude of oscillations of 2-3 μV does not prove brain function and
>> is
>> >> considered an artifact.
>> >> > > However, the conclusion regarding whether signals from the
>> >> hippocampus can be recorded on the scalp relies on several
>> assumptions, and
>> >> these can be challenged. The first is that the source is necessarily a
>> >> dipole. The second is that it is a single dipole, not a set of
>> synchronized
>> >> dipoles distributed over a certain area and similarly oriented.
>> >> > > The question of the validity of these assumptions arose in my mind
>> >> quite a while ago, when I was tasked with using the BrainLoc dipole
>> >> localization program (developed by Yuri Koptelov) to analyze clinical
>> EEGs.
>> >> I was immediately skeptical about the possibility of recording a signal
>> >> from a non-cortical dipole on the scalp, since the dipole potential
>> >> decreases inversely with the square of the distance. However, practical
>> >> experience has shown that sources deep in the brain are localized quite
>> >> accurately, and their location is confirmed by recordings during
>> surgery or
>> >> from implanted electrodes.
>> >> > > In an attempt to explain this paradox, I proposed two explanations.
>> >> > > 1. In addition to the dipole component, a monopole component also
>> >> contributes to the EEG. Its potential decreases less rapidly with
>> distance
>> >> and can therefore be recorded at a greater distance. A possible source
>> of
>> >> this component could be fluctuations in the ionic composition inside
>> and
>> >> outside the neuron (the contribution of glia may also be significant).
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0006350919030138__;!!Mih3wA!GQ6tkO0-y-UdiBpSSa5dvJ5WwALJ32XNjpXJS-5N7m99k4m-659LlesRaG8YmhUmYS88D71nxC6knyaGTmLBp4yz1xU$
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 2. The potential from a system of dipoles changes differently than
>> >> from a single dipole and propagates over a greater distance. Likewise,
>> the
>> >> potential from a system of quadrupoles can propagate over a greater
>> >> distance than from a single dipole.
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0006350921040114__;!!Mih3wA!GQ6tkO0-y-UdiBpSSa5dvJ5WwALJ32XNjpXJS-5N7m99k4m-659LlesRaG8YmhUmYS88D71nxC6knyaGTmLBvqm70Fw$
>> >> > >
>> >> > > It is quite possible that both of these mechanisms need to be taken
>> >> into account, and even then the complexity of the EEG generation
>> process
>> >> may not be exhausted.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Your truly
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Eugen Masherov
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Hi list,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Earlier this year, we discussed whether scalp EEG can measure
>> >> > > > hippocampus. Komal
>> >> > > > and I developed a forward model simulator, L-EEGiability Atlas,
>> to
>> >> answer
>> >> > > > this question. The Github repository is still private. It'll be
>> >> published
>> >> > > > after Komal registers it to Zenodo. This is a follow up.
>> Technical
>> >> detail
>> >> > > > of this forward model is provided after my signature.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > In this forward model simulation, the parameters uses are:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Dipole moment: 0.17 nAm/mm^2 (which is the strength of sleep
>> >> spindle)
>> >> > > > Uniform recruitment rate: 66.6% (arbitrary choice, but for a
>> >> specific
>> >> > > > reason--you will find the reason below)
>> >> > > > Selected regions: CA1, CA2, CA3, CA4 in the left hemisphere (no
>> >> subiculum)
>> >> > > > Total ROI area: 9.59 cm^2
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > A critical fact is that EEG signals smaller than 1.65 microV are
>> not
>> >> > > > guaranteed to be measured (Nuwer et al., 1998). I guess this
>> >> reflects
>> >> > > > realistic requirements of an EEG recorder's noise floor. Thus, <
>> >> 1.65
>> >> > > > microV means 'not eligible for scalp EEG'.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > In this condition, the maximum scalp potential observed is 1.649
>> >> microV!
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thus, to measure hippocampal EEG, average dipole moment needs to
>> be
>> >> > 0.17
>> >> > > > nAm/mm^2 and/or average recruitment rate needs to be > 66.6%. Our
>> >> next
>> >> > > > question is therefore: can we obtain empirical evidence
>> supporting
>> >> these
>> >> > > > numbers?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > By the way, if the left hippocampus becomes epileptic (uniform
>> >> recruitment
>> >> > > > 100%, 0.77 nAm/mm^2), you would measure 11.126 microV at the
>> scalp.
>> >> If I
>> >> > > > apply the Murakami-Okada limit of 2 nAm/mm^2, the measured signal
>> >> would be
>> >> > > > 19.402 microV.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Here is the comparison table to get a feeling of how much depth
>> and
>> >> folding
>> >> > > > penalty the hippocampus EEG undergoes
>> >> > > > (all left hemisphere ROIs, 0.17 nAm/mm^2, uniform 66.6%
>> recruitment,
>> >> > > > amplitude shown is positive peak only at the scalp maximal,
>> >> three-layer
>> >> > > > BSCR=40 model)
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Hippocampus, 9.59 cm^2, 1.649 microV
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Sup Occipital Gyrus, 15.71 cm^2, 36.283 microV
>> >> > > > Sup Parietal Gyrus, 34.94 cm^2, 42.330 microV
>> >> > > > Postcentral Gyrus, 28.94 cm^2, 26.263 microV
>> >> > > > Sup Temporal Gyrus, 24,17 cm^2, 24.420 microV
>> >> > > > Inf Front Opercular, 19.75 cm^2, 18.194 microV
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Insula, 30.77 cm^2, 16.238 microV
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > All pure Gyri, 784.19 cm^2, 49.404 microV
>> >> > > > All pure Sulci, 338.03 cm^2, 48.325 microV
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Whole brain, 2348.56 cm^2, 29.956 microV
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Angular + Supramarginal + Sup Parietal + IntraParietal Sulcus,
>> >> 113.42 cm^2,
>> >> > > > 80.957 microV
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Note that the area of the selected ROI and the scalp-measured EEG
>> >> amplitude
>> >> > > > do not correlate. This is because (1) cancellations due to
>> >> foldings, (2)
>> >> > > > the effect of volume conduction is actually limited locally so
>> that
>> >> source
>> >> > > > effects do not add up at one measurement point.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > If you have a request to test some hypothesis/question, let me
>> know.
>> >> > > > L-EEGiability will be publically available in a week or two.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Makoto
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>> >> > > > Technical note
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Leadfield-based EEG eligibility (L-EEGiability, pronounced as
>> >> > > > 'eligibility') Atlas is an extended version of the Destrieux
>> Atlas
>> >> > > > (Destrieux et al., 2011). Destrieux Atlas is based on Colin27,
>> >> which is a
>> >> > > > single-subject head model and has annotated gyri and sulci. But
>> it
>> >> does not
>> >> > > > come with hippocampi. So I used HippUnfold (DeKraker et al.,
>> 2022,
>> >> 2023) to
>> >> > > > auto-demarcate hippocampi on the Destrieux Atlas.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Then I determined a physiological plausible range of current
>> dipole
>> >> moments
>> >> > > > in nAm/mm^2 for the human brain (Murakami & Okada, 2015; Inverso
>> et
>> >> al.,
>> >> > > > 2016; Rosen et al., 2019). The reported values are like 0.17 for
>> >> sleep
>> >> > > > spindle, 0.2-0.35 for visual evoked potential at V1, and
>> 0.16-0.77
>> >> for
>> >> > > > interictal spikes. Murakami & Okada also proposed a physiological
>> >> limit of
>> >> > > > 1-2 nAm/mm^2.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I also set a few other open parameters, such as synchronization
>> >> rate. This
>> >> > > > is completely arbitrary. We need empirical data to fill this in.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > The brain-to-skull-conductivity (BSCR) ratio precalculated are
>> 26,
>> >> 40, 80.
>> >> > > > Although BSCR=26 is the modern estimate, because the model is
>> three
>> >> tissue
>> >> > > > layers without CSF, using BSCR=40 compensates for the lack of CSF
>> >> layer
>> >> > > > (EFB Chapter 6).
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 5:29 PM Makoto Miyakoshi <
>> >> mmiyakoshi at ucsd.edu>
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> Hi all,
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> I've read this discussion with great interest!
>> >> > > >> Here are my thoughts.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> 1. If I adopt a conventional dogma of generative mechanism of
>> EEG
>> >> > > >> i.e., all/most of scalp-measured EEG signals entirely generated
>> by
>> >> > > >> post-synaptic membrane potential in cortical surface (Electric
>> >> Fields of
>> >> > > >> the Brain, EFB, by Nunez and Srinivasan 2006 adopts this
>> >> assumption, for
>> >> > > >> example), measuring EEG signals generated in the hippocampus
>> using
>> >> a
>> >> > > >> conventional EEG recorder (i.e., sensitivity limit > 1 microV)
>> >> would be
>> >> > > >> impossible primarily because of the geometry (too small, too
>> deep,
>> >> rolled
>> >> > > >> shape, etc..)
>> >> > > >> 2. However, a modern electrodiffusive neural-extracellular-glia
>> >> > > >> (edNEG) model indicates the possibility that non-synaptic source
>> >> activity
>> >> > > >> affects scalp EEG as well, which is much less studied. See
>> Saetra
>> >> et al.
>> >> > > >> (2021) for full details (but this one is super technical).
>> >> > > >>
>> >>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371*journal.pcbi.1008143*libraryItemId=11397962__;LyM!!Mih3wA!BJz_jI7amVJIO4yLx16kUNcvtKfKz2Vq2a8fn-buH6yEmuldbNRSNq8JZ679B42teXAZ4sz3nMIKlNimhKtMlKPZmVs$
>> >> > > >> 3. I read the dispute between Joseph's group and Mike's group
>> with
>> >> > > >> great interest. If I stand on the conventional viewpoint, I
>> agree
>> >> with
>> >> > > >> Mike, and I usually stand on it. But that does not mean
>> >> non-conventional
>> >> > > >> source cannot exist, particularly if it is observed in a
>> >> low-frequency
>> >> > > >> range (below delta). After all, we do not know EEG phenomenon
>> >> completely,
>> >> > > >> so we are not there yet to make an a priori prediction that can
>> >> properly
>> >> > > >> bound the observation (i.e., "If we observe X under certain
>> >> conditions, it
>> >> > > >> MUST BE noise because it cannot be there from biophysics!")
>> >> > > >> 4. That said, I still want to emphasize that learning the
>> >> conventional
>> >> > > >> synaptic dogma and EEG's unique scaling law (i.e., volume
>> >> conductor theory,
>> >> > > >> including what I call 'transducer array effect' of a dipole
>> layer)
>> >> is very
>> >> > > >> important. For those who are curious, below I provide two
>> sources
>> >> of
>> >> > > >> information:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> The first material to read is an excerpt from EFB 2nd ed page
>> >> 81-83. Here,
>> >> > > >> the authors demonstrate a typical misconception/misuse of both
>> >> equivalent
>> >> > > >> current dipole model and assumption of EEG source distributions
>> >> (i.e.,
>> >> > > >> small vs. large cortical patches). As a result, such an
>> incorrect
>> >> > > >> application leads to an implicit conclusion that there was a 5V
>> >> (=5,000,000
>> >> > > >> microV) source inside the brain. The authors' following
>> concluding
>> >> remark
>> >> > > >> suggests there exists this known pitfall/misconception in
>> >> literature
>> >> > > >> reporting dipole source models in general (ouch...)
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> *Of course, such extracellular potentials are too large by a
>> >> factor of
>> >> > > >> 1000 or more to be physiologically realistic. However, such
>> >> considerations
>> >> > > >> have not prevented reports of such magical dipoles. One wonders
>> if
>> >> this
>> >> > > >> explains why source magnitudes are often not reported.*
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LGyydB9ZucbBG9EQoZDKAg4CEUJlAWon__;!!Mih3wA!BJz_jI7amVJIO4yLx16kUNcvtKfKz2Vq2a8fn-buH6yEmuldbNRSNq8JZ679B42teXAZ4sz3nMIKlNimhKtMHlzFVrk$
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> The second material to read is my manuscript under review, in
>> >> which I
>> >> > > >> described what I believe is the correct 'scaling law' of
>> >> scalp-recorded EEG
>> >> > > >> signals. Please find the section "Where did the small patch
>> model
>> >> come
>> >> > > >> from, and what does it miss?" in Discussion.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.01.23.26344529v1*libraryItemId=18612094__;Iw!!Mih3wA!BJz_jI7amVJIO4yLx16kUNcvtKfKz2Vq2a8fn-buH6yEmuldbNRSNq8JZ679B42teXAZ4sz3nMIKlNimhKtMsEnkBo8$
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> I will submit a separate post about this manuscript, as this
>> >> 'scaling law'
>> >> > > >> is a tool for a larger aim.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> I have one more thing I wanted to report here, which would make
>> a
>> >> > > >> practical (and I believe substantial) contribution to this
>> debate.
>> >> But
>> >> > > >> because Komal wants to keep it a low profile until he comes up
>> >> with some
>> >> > > >> proof of concept, I cannot tell you what it is ha ha. I believe
>> >> that this
>> >> > > >> solution provides a clear answer to the question "Can EEG
>> measure
>> >> the
>> >> > > >> hippocampus' at least within the limitation of the conventional
>> >> synaptic
>> >> > > >> dogma + volume conductor theory.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Makoto
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > _______________________________________________
>> >> > > > To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
>> >> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu or visit
>> >> https://sccn.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/eeglablist    .
>> >> > > _______________________________________________
>> >> > > To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
>> >> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu or visit
>> >> https://sccn.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/eeglablist   .
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
>> >> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu or visit
>> >> https://sccn.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/eeglablist  .
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
>> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu or visit
>> https://sccn.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/eeglablist .
>
>