Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40800346›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024

Simultaneous whole-head electrophysiological recordings using EEG and OPM-MEG.

Zelekha A Seedat, Kelly St Pier, Niall Holmes, Molly Rea, Layla Al-Hilaly, Tim M Tierney, Christine M Embury, Rosemarie Pardington, Karen J Mullinger, J Helen Cross and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Expanding the toolkit: OPMs for studying the developing brain.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026
    Review
  7. SPM-30 years and beyond.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025
    Review
  8. Anatomically Veridical On-Scalp Sensor Topographies.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors.

Zelekha A SeedatYoung Epilepsy, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Kelly St PierYoung Epilepsy, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Niall HolmesSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Molly ReaCerca Magnetics Limited, Nottingham, UK.
Layla Al-HilalyYoung Epilepsy, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Tim M TierneyWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Christine M EmburyYoung Epilepsy, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Rosemarie PardingtonYoung Epilepsy, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Karen J MullingerSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
J Helen CrossYoung Epilepsy, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Elena BotoSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Matthew J BrookesSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) non-invasively measure human brain electrophysiology. They differ in nature; MEG offers better performance while EEG (a wearable platform) is more practical. They are also complementary, with studies showing that concurrent MEG/EEG provides advantages over either modality alone, and consequently clinical guidelines for MEG in epilepsy recommend simultaneous acquisition of MEG and EEG. In recent years, new instrumentation-the optically pumped magnetometer (OPM)-has had a significant impact on MEG, offering improved performance, lifespan compliance, and wearable MEG systems. Nevertheless, the ability to carry out simultaneous EEG/OPM-MEG remains critical. Here, we investigated whether simultaneous, wearable, whole-head EEG and OPM-MEG measurably degrades signal quality in either modality. We employed two tasks: a motor task known to modulate beta oscillations, and an eyes-open/closed task known to modulate alpha oscillations. In both, we characterised the performance of EEG alone, OPM-MEG alone, and concurrent EEG/OPM-MEG. Results show that the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the beta response was similar, regardless of whether modalities were used individually or concurrently. Likewise, our alpha band recordings demonstrated that signal contrast was stable, regardless of the concurrent recording. We also demonstrate significant advantages of OPM-MEG; specifically, the OPM-MEG signal is less correlated across channels and less susceptible to interference from non-brain sources. Our results suggest that there are no barriers to simultaneous wearable EEG/OPM-MEG, and consequently this technique is ripe for neuroscientific and clinical adoption. This will be important in the clinic where simultaneous EEG and OPM-MEG recordings will facilitate better interpretation of OPM-MEG data in patients.

Indexed as

EEGelectroencephalographyelectrophysiologymagnetoencephalographyMEGOPMOPM-MEGoptically pumped magnetometersimultaneous EEG/OPM-MEG

Identifiers

PMID40800346
PMCPMC12247592

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.