ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Effects of Inverse Solutions and Calibration Errors on Localization Performance of OPM-MEG.
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.
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
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
Identifiers
41986821What 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.