ArticleScientific reports2020
Pragmatic spatial sampling for wearable MEG arrays.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spatial-Jitter Model for Magnetoencephalography Sensor Arrays.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2026Article
- Effects of Inverse Solutions and Calibration Errors on Localization Performance of OPM-MEG.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Enhanced Neural Decoding With Optically Pumped Magnetometer MEG Using Multivariate Pattern Analysis.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2026Article
- Accurate OPM-MEG Co-Registration via Magnetic Dipole-Based Sensor Localization with Rigid Coil Structures and Optical Direction Constraints.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- SPM-30 years and beyond.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Review
- Volume conductor models for magnetospinography.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Inferring laminar origins of MEG signals with optically pumped magnetometers (OPMs): A simulation study.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Determining sensor geometry and gain in a wearable MEG system.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Combining OPM and lesion mapping data for epilepsy surgery planning: a simulation study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Single-trial classification of evoked responses to auditory tones using OPM- and SQUID-MEG.Journal of neural engineering · 2023Article
- Article
- Yttrium-Iron Garnet Magnetometer in MEG: Advance towards Multi-Channel Arrays.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Wearable OPM-MEG: A changing landscape for epilepsy.Epilepsia · 2022Review
- Spherical harmonic based noise rejection and neuronal sampling with multi-axis OPMs.NeuroImage · 2022Article
- On-scalp magnetocorticography with optically pumped magnetometers: Simulated performance in resolving simultaneous sources.Neuroimage. Reports · 2022Article
- Triaxial detection of the neuromagnetic field using optically-pumped magnetometry: feasibility and application in children.NeuroImage · 2022Article
- Source localization using virtual magnetoencephalography helmets: A simulation study toward a prior-based tailored scheme.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Spatial sampling of MEG and EEG based on generalized spatial-frequency analysis and optimal design.NeuroImage · 2021Article
- Evolution of MEG: A first MEG-feasible fluxgate magnetometer.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
- Basal ganglia activation localized in MEG using a reward task.Neuroimage. Reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Several new technologies have emerged promising new Magnetoencephalography (MEG) systems in which the sensors can be placed close to the scalp. One such technology, Optically Pumped MEG (OP-MEG) allows for a scalp mounted system that provides measurements within millimetres of the scalp surface. A question that arises in developing on-scalp systems is: how many sensors are necessary to achieve adequate performance/spatial discrimination? There are many factors to consider in answering this question such as the signal to noise ratio (SNR), the locations and depths of the sources, density of spatial sampling, sensor gain errors (due to interference, subject movement, cross-talk, etc.) and, of course, the desired spatial discrimination. In this paper, we provide simulations which show the impact these factors have on designing sensor arrays for wearable MEG. While OP-MEG has the potential to provide high information content at dense spatial samplings, we find that adequate spatial discrimination of sources (< 1 cm) can be achieved with relatively few sensors (< 100) at coarse spatial samplings (~ 30 mm) at high SNR. After this point approximately 50 more sensors are required for every 1 mm improvement in spatial discrimination. Comparable discrimination for traditional cryogenic systems require more channels by these same metrics. We also show that sensor gain errors have the greatest impact on discrimination between deep sources at high SNR. Finally, we also examine the limitation that aliasing due to undersampling has on the effective SNR of on-scalp sensors.
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.