ArticleNeuroImage2026
Atlas-based electrical source imaging for mouse EEG: Application to an Fmr1 knockout model.
Article in NeuroImage, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electrical source imaging (ESI) reconstructs where in the brain a scalp EEG signal arises. It is routine in humans but unestablished in the mouse, whose brain is some 3000 times smaller where it is not obvious that a sparse array can separate one region from another. We built an atlas-based ESI pipeline for 30-channel mouse EEG and tested it against simulated dipoles, across 18 combinations of source space, head model and inverse operator, with conductivity and noise sweeps. The best, a region-of-interest source space with an ellipsoid head model and sLORETA, recovered superficial sources to a mean error of 0.93 mm, rising to 5.08 mm at depth. We then applied it to resting EEG from male Fmr1 knockout (n = 18) and wild-type (n = 17) mice. Gamma power was elevated in the knockouts (Low Gamma q = 0.004, standardized mean difference 1.02; High Gamma q = 0.004, 0.67) and localized to six parcels, three of them in both bands. Relative power in Delta, Theta and High Gamma, and both aperiodic parameters, varied by region (q < 0.001 to 0.035). The electrode analysis recovered neither the Delta pattern nor any named structure. The gamma findings survived adjustment for acquisition cohort (p = 0.001 and 0.002). Simulation bounds what the pipeline recovers and which region it assigns activity to, but cannot show that a labeled region is the true source in a live animal. Replication across recording systems, sex, age and injection-naive animals is needed.
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.