ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Phantom-Based Approach for Comparing Conventional and Optically Pumped Magnetometer Magnetoencephalography Systems.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Accurate OPM-MEG Co-Registration via Magnetic Dipole-Based Sensor Localization with Rigid Coil Structures and Optical Direction Constraints.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a vital tool for understanding neural dynamics, offering a noninvasive technique for measuring subtle magnetic field variations around the scalp generated by synchronized neuronal activity. Two prominent sensor technologies exist: the well-established superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) and the more recent optically pumped magnetometer (OPM). Although many studies have compared these technologies using human-subject data in neuroscience and clinical studies, a direct hardware-level comparison using dry phantoms remains unexplored. This study presents a framework for comparing SQUID- with OPM-MEG systems in a controlled environment using a dry phantom that emulates neuronal activity, allowing strict control over physiological artifacts. Data were obtained from SQUID and OPM systems within the same shielded room, ensuring consistent environmental noise control and shielding conditions. Positioning the OPM sensors closer to the signal source resulted in a signal amplitude approximately 3-4 times larger than that detected by the SQUID-MEG system. However, the source localization error of the OPM-MEG system was approximately three times larger than that obtained by the SQUID-MEG system. The cause of the large source localization error was discussed in terms of sensor-to-source distance, sensor count, signal-noise ratio, and the spatial coverage provided by the sensor array of the source signal.
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.