ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Distorting anatomy to test MEG models and metrics.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The magnetoencephalographic and electroencephalographic (M/EEG) source reconstruction problem is an ill-posed model inversion, so it must be constrained by imposing biologically and physically plausible assumptions. Different M/EEG source reconstruction methods entail different assumptions about the underlying current distribution, yet all produce subjectively plausible current estimates. This work aims to develop an objective method that can be used to test any M/EEG analysis pathway. We make use of advances in diffeomorphic brain shape modeling to construct a set of parametrically deformable cortical surfaces that are representative of the population. These deformed (surrogate) brains provide a quantifiable parametric distortion from the ground-truth anatomy. If the current flow giving rise to the MEG data were generated on the true cortical manifold, MEG current estimates should be selective of the true anatomy. We show in simulation and with empirical data how the correct reconstruction assumptions depend closely on the true anatomy. We present a method to quantify the performance of MEG source reconstruction algorithms (and metrics of fit) in terms of millimeters of distortion.
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.