ArticleBrain topography2026
Conductivity Deviations as Virtual Sources in Magnetoencephalography.
Article in Brain topography, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a method to study electrical activity in the brain. MEG signals are modeled by primary currents, which represent neuronal activity, and associated passive volume currents, which depend on the conductivity distribution within the body. The effect of conductivity inhomogeneities can be described as if additional virtual source currents were present. Virtual sources help to understand conductivity effects independently from the sensor array properties. The Volume Current Formulation (VCF) of the virtual sources focuses on altered patterns of volume currents, whereas in the Secondary Current Formulation (SCF) the virtual sources are at locations where conductivity changes. We derived and compared these formulations for deviations from a reference conductivity distribution. In VCF, the virtual sources are located only where the conductivity deviation is non-zero, but their orientation and magnitude depend on the local electric field. In contrast, in SCF, both the location and the orientation of the virtual sources are determined by the conductivity distribution, typically by the anatomical tissue boundaries. In SCF, however, all conductivity boundaries, including those in the reference distribution, generally need to be considered. For spherically symmetric reference conductivity, in VCF the radial component of a virtual source does not contribute to any component of the magnetic field, whereas in SCF the radial component of a virtual source does not contribute to the radial component but contributes to the tangential components of the magnetic field. Complementary descriptions using VCF and SCF were illustrated in a model for fontanels in infants.
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.