Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41986821›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026

Effects of Inverse Solutions and Calibration Errors on Localization Performance of OPM-MEG.

Shengjie Qi, Shuhao Cui, Le Jia, Tengyue Long, Xinda Song, Xiaolin Ning

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Shengjie QiSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China.
Shuhao CuiSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China.
Le JiaSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China.
Tengyue LongSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China. ltyviolet@buaa.edu.cn.
Xinda SongSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China. songxinda@buaa.edu.cn.
Xiaolin NingSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China.

Funding

Industrial Technology Basic Public Service Platform Project 2022-189-181National Natural Science Foundation of China 51925501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of magnetoencephalography (MEG) based on optically pumped magnetometers (OPMs) has accelerated the evolution of brain imaging toward portable and movable configurations. Source localization using OPM-MEG plays a crucial role in both neuroscience and clinical applications. However, few studies have systematically evaluated localization performance under realistic measurement conditions that account for potential sensor errors. In this study, we simulated empirical OPM-MEG data with a biologically plausible model of ongoing brain activity to investigate the effects of calibration errors, specifically gain error, crosstalk, and angular misalignment, on the localization performance of three OPM array configurations: single-axis, dual-axis, and tri-axis sensors. We also compared four source inversion algorithms: Multiple Sparse Priors (MSP), Empirical Bayesian Beamformer (EBB), Minimum Norm (IID), and LORETA (COH). Our results indicate that gain error had minimal impact on localization accuracy, whereas crosstalk and angular error significantly degraded performance. These findings underscore the importance of OPM array calibration using reference magnetic fields, particularly for dual- and tri-axis configurations. Among the inversion methods tested, MSP demonstrated relative robustness to calibration errors and achieved the best overall performance, making it the most recommended approach. Furthermore, analysis of the relationship between cortical anatomy and localization accuracy revealed that deep neural sources are more susceptible to gain errors and thus require particular attention. To achieve accuracy comparable to an ideal OPM-MEG system, crosstalk should be kept below 2% and angular error under 2°.

Indexed as

Calibration errorsInverse solutionMagnetoencephalography (MEG)Source localizationWearable optically pumped magnetometer (OPM)-MEG

Identifiers

PMID41986821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.