↓ Skip to main content

iElectrodes: A Comprehensive Open-Source Toolbox for Depth and Subdural Grid Electrode Localization

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
iElectrodes: A Comprehensive Open-Source Toolbox for Depth and Subdural Grid Electrode Localization
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fninf.2017.00014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alejandro O. Blenkmann, Holly N. Phillips, Juan P. Princich, James B. Rowe, Tristan A. Bekinschtein, Carlos H. Muravchik, Silvia Kochen

Abstract

The localization of intracranial electrodes is a fundamental step in the analysis of invasive electroencephalography (EEG) recordings in research and clinical practice. The conclusions reached from the analysis of these recordings rely on the accuracy of electrode localization in relationship to brain anatomy. However, currently available techniques for localizing electrodes from magnetic resonance (MR) and/or computerized tomography (CT) images are time consuming and/or limited to particular electrode types or shapes. Here we present iElectrodes, an open-source toolbox that provides robust and accurate semi-automatic localization of both subdural grids and depth electrodes. Using pre- and post-implantation images, the method takes 2-3 min to localize the coordinates in each electrode array and automatically number the electrodes. The proposed pre-processing pipeline allows one to work in a normalized space and to automatically obtain anatomical labels of the localized electrodes without neuroimaging experts. We validated the method with data from 22 patients implanted with a total of 1,242 electrodes. We show that localization distances were within 0.56 mm of those achieved by experienced manual evaluators. iElectrodes provided additional advantages in terms of robustness (even with severe perioperative cerebral distortions), speed (less than half the operator time compared to expert manual localization), simplicity, utility across multiple electrode types (surface and depth electrodes) and all brain regions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 22%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 6 5%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 25 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 20 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 16%
Engineering 16 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 35 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,008,021
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#214
of 795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,672
of 314,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.