Virtual iEEG from Scalp EEG: Charting the Landscape of Source Imaging, Intracranial Inference and Reconstruction
Organizations: Department of Language Science and Technology, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong SAR, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, Chongqing University of Technology, Chongqing, China · Affiliated Lianyungang Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Lianyungang, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, Southern University of Science and Technology Hospital, Shenzhen, China
Abstract
Intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) provides temporally precise and spatially specific access to neural activity from focal and deep brain regions, but its invasiveness and restricted anatomical coverage limit routine use. These constraints have motivated scalp-to-intracranial inference, termed virtual iEEG when model outputs carry iEEG-defined event, feature, representation, or contact-level waveform semantics. This review presents a target-centred framework distinguishing event inference, feature translation, and waveform reconstruction, while separating predictability from observability, identifiability, fidelity, and utility. Evidence is evaluated according to cohort independence, anatomical and spectral coverage, train--test separation, and target-patient adaptation. Current studies support inference of selected intracranial events, low-frequency components, and task-related representations, but not unique recovery of arbitrary contact-level activity. Stronger validation requires appropriate controls, source-imaging baselines, uncertainty assessment, and incremental-utility testing. Future progress depends on independent paired datasets and prospective evidence that virtual iEEG adds value beyond scalp EEG and EEG source imaging.
Figures & tables
| Dimension | Shared basis | EEG source imaging (ESI) | Scalp-to-intracranial reconstruction (STIR) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input | Volume-conducted, reference-dependent, sparsely sampled scalp potentials [ 23 ] | Boundary measurements for inverse estimation | Conditioning inputs for virtual-contact estimates or representations |
| Biophysics | Neural currents; head anatomy; scalp lead field | Explicit forward model; regularised or prior-based inverse [ 23 ] | Paired-data conditional mapping; implicit biophysical relationships; geometric or physical constraints [ 27 , 30 ] |
| Target | Latent neural information beyond raw scalp traces | Source location; current-density map; source-space time series | iEEG-defined event; time–frequency feature; embedding; contact waveform |
| Predictive form | Deterministic or probabilistic inference | Regularised or prior-constrained source estimate | Point estimate or conditional distribution |
| Anatomy | Electrode position; head model; cortical geometry; source depth | Head model; source-space definition | Contact semantics; representation localisation; anatomy-stratified prediction |
| Data | Anatomical and acquisition metadata | Scalp EEG and head model; optional paired-iEEG validation | Paired or aligned scalp–iEEG; supervised target learning |
| Determinant | Mechanism | Favourable conditions | Limiting conditions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source extent and synchrony | Net scalp amplitude depends on effective generator extent and field summation; synchrony increases summation but is not a binary prerequisite | Extended recruitment; coherent or otherwise constructively summating generators; high event-to-background SNR | Small effective extent; destructive cancellation; low SNR; empirical area thresholds are not universal [ 51 , 52 , 53 ] |
| Depth and orientation | Depth, cortical geometry, source orientation, and sensor coverage shape lead-field amplitude and SNR; none alone fixes visibility | Strong scalp projection; prominent deep rhythms under intracranial-informed analysis | Weak projection; low-SNR pure mesial-temporal single events; current subcortical evidence is limited to prominent 8–10-Hz rhythms [ 54 , 55 , 56 ] |
| Frequency content | Quasi-static propagation is approximately frequency independent; detectability instead depends on generator extent and frequency-specific background SNR | Sufficient extent and SNR; repeated delta signatures or prominent 8–10-Hz target rhythms | Focal, low-amplitude high-frequency generators require favourable SNR; low-frequency evidence does not establish contact-specific HFO recovery [ 52 , 57 , 56 ] |
| Background state | Neural state changes the recorded activity and can alter scalp–intracranial comparison performance | Pre-specified and matched state; state-stratified evaluation | Pooling wake, NREM sleep, or anaesthesia without stratification [ 50 , 57 ] |
| Event structure and analysis | Known event timing permits aggregation; averaging tests a repeatable scalp contribution, not single-trial recovery | Repeated, consistently timed events; event-locked or trigger-averaged analysis | Irregularly timed events; low-SNR single-trial targets; extrapolating averaged results to single events [ 55 ] |
| Reference and montage | Re-referencing is spatial processing and can alter amplitude, polarity, spectral power, and coherence | Explicitly reported scalp and iEEG montages; sensitivity analysis across reasonable references | Unreported or mismatched references; treating montage-specific results as reference-invariant [ 58 , 59 ] |
| Study / Model | Cohort and estimand | Principal result | Evidence boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lam et al. [ 25 ] | 10 patients contributing 25 scalp-negative mesial-temporal seizures plus 13 patients contributing control records; leave-one-patient-out network detection | Eight of the 25 prespecified seizures plus one previously overlooked seizure detected; three false alarms; 0.31 false alarms/day; PPV 75% | PCA fitted to all seizure and control records before cross-validation; feature set selected on cross-validation performance; 8/9 detections occurred during sleep; local waveform recovery not evaluated |
| Abou Jaoude et al. [ 41 ] | ; 8,395 h simultaneous scalp–foramen-ovale EEG; patient-stratified fivefold cross-validation; hidden hippocampal-activity detection | ROC AUC ; precision–recall AUC ; at PPV : sensitivity , false-positive rate /min | Primary training and expert-labelled testing used sleep; external diagnosis/lateralisation cohorts were scalp-only; awake sensitivity at the sleep-derived PPV threshold using FOnet labels |
| Antoniades et al. [ 27 ] | Simultaneous scalp–foramen-ovale cohort ( ); 325-ms IED/non-IED trials; leave-subject-out pseudo-iEEG classification | IED accuracy: 62% linear mapping; 65% direct time–frequency scalp features; 68% asymmetric-symmetric-autoencoder representation | The test subject’s scalp data selected the most-correlated of 17 subject-specific mappers; waveform comparison was qualitative; absolute correlation and waveform error were not reported |
| E2SGAN [ 30 ] | ; simultaneous pre-ictal EEG–SEEG; 15.875-s windows with 75% overlap; leave-one-patient-out evaluation; preselected channel pairs | distance ratios versus raw EEG: DTW , PSD , Hellinger ; best PSD and Hellinger results among compared models | Pair selection used distance intervals and signal similarity; contact-wise correlation and event endpoints were not reported; downsampling to 64 Hz imposed a 32-Hz Nyquist limit; separation relative to overlapping-window generation was not reported |
| VAE-cGAN [ 43 ] | Reused simultaneous cohort ( ); 320-ms IED/non-IED segments; intra-subject 70:10:20 split and inter-subject ensemble | Intra-subject mean-squared error 0.014, Pearson , cosine 0.34; inter-subject IED accuracy 69% versus 68% for ASAE and cGAN | Waveform metrics were intra-subject only; inter-subject models were restricted to training subjects with intra-subject accuracy ; cross-subject waveform fidelity, diversity, interval coverage, and uncertainty calibration were not evaluated |
| NeuroFlowNet [ 31 ] | Three selected patients from a nine-patient simultaneous dataset; subject-specific medial-temporal reconstruction; random-trial 90:10 and session-held-out tests | Mean : random-trial 0.50; session-held-out 0.54; regional session-held-out 0.05–0.84 | No cross-patient test; spectral evaluation was mainly 0.5–50 Hz and excluded high-gamma/HFO claims; validation-set coverage of nominal 90% intervals was 38.1–43.2% |
Electroencephalography
Electroencephalography (EEG) studies brain-generated electrical activity to understand cognition and support diagnosis, monitoring, and brain-computer interfaces.
See all 183 papers