Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30012537›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2018

Quantifying the performance of MEG source reconstruction using resting state data.

Simon Little, James Bonaiuto, Sofie S Meyer, Jose Lopez, Sven Bestmann, Gareth Barnes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Tracking electrophysiological signatures of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review of multimodal studies.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. SPM-30 years and beyond.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. "What" and "When" Predictions Jointly Modulate Speech Processing.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  6. High precision magnetoencephalography reveals increased right-inferior frontal gyrus beta power during response conflict.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Distorting anatomy to test MEG models and metrics.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Simon LittleDepartment of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK. Electronic address: simon.little@ucl.ac.uk.
James BonaiutoDepartment of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK; Centre de Neuroscience Cognitive, CNRS UMR 5229-Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, 69675, Bron Cedex, France.
Sofie S MeyerWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Institute of Neurology, 12 Queen Square, London, UK; Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, WC1N 3AR, UK; Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, WC1N 1PJ, UK.
Jose LopezElectronic Engineering Department, Universidad de Antioquia, UdeA, Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín, Colombia.
Sven BestmannDepartment of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK; Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Institute of Neurology, 12 Queen Square, London, UK.
Gareth BarnesWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Institute of Neurology, 12 Queen Square, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K005464/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In magnetoencephalography (MEG) research there are a variety of inversion methods to transform sensor data into estimates of brain activity. Each new inversion scheme is generally justified against a specific simulated or task scenario. The choice of this scenario will however have a large impact on how well the scheme performs. We describe a method with minimal selection bias to quantify algorithm performance using human resting state data. These recordings provide a generic, heterogeneous, and plentiful functional substrate against which to test different MEG recording and reconstruction approaches. We used a Hidden Markov model to spatio-temporally partition data into self-similar dynamic states. To test the anatomical precision that could be achieved, we then inverted these data onto libraries of systematically distorted subject-specific cortical meshes and compared the quality of the fit using cross validation and a Free energy metric. This revealed which inversion scheme was able to identify the least distorted (most accurate) anatomical models, and allowed us to quantify an upper bound on the mean anatomical distortion accordingly. We used two resting state datasets, one recorded with head-casts and one without. In the head-cast data, the Empirical Bayesian Beamformer (EBB) algorithm showed the best mean anatomical discrimination (3.7 mm) compared with Minimum Norm/LORETA (6.0 mm) and Multiple Sparse Priors (9.4 mm). This pattern was replicated in the second (conventional dataset) although with a marginally poorer (non-significant) prediction of the missing (cross-validated) data. Our findings suggest that the abundant resting state data now commonly available could be used to refine and validate MEG source reconstruction methods and/or recording paradigms.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdultCerebral CortexFunctional NeuroimagingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetoencephalographyModels, AnatomicRestEmpirical Bayesian beamformerForward modelHead-castHidden Markov modelInversionLORETAMagnetoencephalographyMinimum normMultiple sparse priorsResolutionResting state

Identifiers

PMID30012537
PMCPMC6150947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.