Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34483827›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021

Co-registration Comparison of On-Scalp Magnetoencephalography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Fuzhi Cao, Nan An, Weinan Xu, Wenli Wang, Yanfei Yang, Min Xiang, Yang Gao, Xiaolin Ning

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. OMMR: Co-registration toolbox of OPM-MEG and MRI.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022
    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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fuzhi CaoSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
Nan AnSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
Weinan XuSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
Wenli WangSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
Yanfei YangSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
Min XiangHangzhou Innovation Institute, Beihang University, Hangzhou, China.
Yang GaoHangzhou Innovation Institute, Beihang University, Hangzhou, China.
Xiaolin NingHangzhou Innovation Institute, Beihang University, Hangzhou, China.
Beihang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Magnetoencephalography (MEG) can non-invasively measure the electromagnetic activity of the brain. A new type of MEG, on-scalp MEG, has attracted the attention of researchers recently. Compared to the conventional SQUID-MEG, on-scalp MEG constructed with optically pumped magnetometers is wearable and has a high signal-to-noise ratio. While the co-registration between MEG and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) significantly influences the source localization accuracy, co-registration error requires assessment, and quantification. Recent studies have evaluated the co-registration error of on-scalp MEG mainly based on the surface fit error or the repeatability error of different measurements, which do not reflect the true co-registration error. In this study, a three-dimensional-printed reference phantom was constructed to provide the ground truth of MEG sensor locations and orientations relative to MRI. The co-registration performances of commonly used three devices-electromagnetic digitization system, structured-light scanner, and laser scanner-were compared and quantified by the indices of final co-registration errors in the reference phantom and human experiments. Furthermore, the influence of the co-registration error on the performance of source localization was analyzed via simulations. The laser scanner had the best co-registration accuracy (rotation error of 0.23° and translation error of 0.76 mm based on the phantom experiment), whereas the structured-light scanner had the best cost performance. The results of this study provide recommendations and precautions for researchers regarding selecting and using an appropriate device for the co-registration of on-scalp MEG and MRI.

Indexed as

co-registrationlaser scannermagnetoencephalographyon-scalp MEGreference phantom

Identifiers

PMID34483827
PMCPMC8414551
OpenAlexW3195913606

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.