ArticleNeuroImage2018
Quantifying the performance of MEG source reconstruction using resting state data.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tracking electrophysiological signatures of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review of multimodal studies.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Pooled it
- SPM-30 years and beyond.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Review
- Neural Electrical Correlates of Subjective Happiness.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Healthy aging changes in conventional frequency bands of neuroelectric brain activity reconstructed from resting-state MEG.GeroScience · 2025Article
- "What" and "When" Predictions Jointly Modulate Speech Processing.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- "What" and "when" predictions modulate auditory processing in a mutually congruent manner.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Virtual intracranial EEG signals reconstructed from MEG with potential for epilepsy surgery.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Article
- A systematic evaluation of source reconstruction of resting MEG of the human brain with a new high-resolution atlas: Performance, precision, and parcellation.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
- Article
- Data-driven model optimization for optically pumped magnetometer sensor arrays.Human brain mapping · 2019Article
- Distorting anatomy to test MEG models and metrics.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.