Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39230193›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2024

Comparison between EEG and MEG of static and dynamic resting-state networks.

SungJun Cho, Mats van Es, Mark Woolrich, Chetan Gohil

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Canonical Hidden Markov Model Networks for studying M/EEG.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
    Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

SungJun ChoOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2787-3739
Mats van EsOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mark WoolrichOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Chetan GohilOxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Dementias Platform UK RG89702Dementias Platform UK RG94383New Therapeutics in Alzheimer's Diseases (NTAD), UK Medical Research CouncilNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre NIHR203316Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 106183/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 203139/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 215573/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The characterisation of resting-state networks (RSNs) using neuroimaging techniques has significantly contributed to our understanding of the organisation of brain activity. Prior work has demonstrated the electrophysiological basis of RSNs and their dynamic nature, revealing transient activations of brain networks with millisecond timescales. While previous research has confirmed the comparability of RSNs identified by electroencephalography (EEG) to those identified by magnetoencephalography (MEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), most studies have utilised static analysis techniques, ignoring the dynamic nature of brain activity. Often, these studies use high-density EEG systems, which limit their applicability in clinical settings. Addressing these gaps, our research studies RSNs using medium-density EEG systems (61 sensors), comparing both static and dynamic brain network features to those obtained from a high-density MEG system (306 sensors). We assess the qualitative and quantitative comparability of EEG-derived RSNs to those from MEG, including their ability to capture age-related effects, and explore the reproducibility of dynamic RSNs within and across the modalities. Our findings suggest that both MEG and EEG offer comparable static and dynamic network descriptions, albeit with MEG offering some increased sensitivity and reproducibility. Such RSNs and their comparability across the two modalities remained consistent qualitatively but not quantitatively when the data were reconstructed without subject-specific structural MRI images.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyMagnetoencephalographyNerve NetAdolescentAdultAgedBrainConnectomeFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRestYoung Adultelectroencephalographyhidden Markov Modelmagnetoencephalographyneural dynamicsresting‐state networks

Identifiers

PMID39230193
PMCPMC11372824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.