ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Improving source estimation of retinotopic MEG responses by combining data from multiple subjects.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Combined MEG and EEG suggest a limbic source network of the P3 including retrosplenial cortex and hippocampus.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a functional brain imaging modality, which measures the weak magnetic field arising from neuronal activity. The source amplitudes and locations are estimated from the sensor data by solving an ill-posed inverse problem. Commonly used solutions for these problems operate on data from individual subjects. Combining the measurements of multiple subjects has been suggested to increase the spatial resolution of MEG by leveraging the intersubject differences for increased information. In this article, we compare 3 multisubject analysis methods on a retinotopic mapping dataset recorded from 20 subjects. The compared methods are eLORETA with source-space averaging, minimum Wasserstein estimates (MWE), and MWE with source-space averaging. The results were quantified by the geodesic distances between early (60-100 ms) MEG peak activations and fMRI-based retinotopic target points in the primary visual cortex (V1). By increasing the subject count from 1 to 10, the median distances decreased by 6.6-9.4 mm (33-46%) compared with the single-subject median distances of around 20 mm. The observed peak activation locations with multisubject analysis also comply better with the established retinotopic maps of the primary visual cortex. Our results suggest that higher spatial accuracy can be achieved by pooling data from multiple subjects. The strength of MWE lies in individualized and sparse source estimates, but in our data, averaging eLORETA estimates across individuals in source space outperformed MWE in spatial accuracy.
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.