Improved Localization Accuracy in Magnetic Source Imaging Using a 3-D Laser Scanner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain source localization accuracy in magnetoencephalography (MEG) requires accuracy in both digitizing anatomical landmarks and coregistering to anatomical magnetic resonance images (MRI). We compared the source localization accuracy and MEG-MRI coregistration accuracy of two head digitization systems-a laser scanner and the current standard electromagnetic digitization system (Polhemus)-using a calibrated phantom and human data. When compared using the calibrated phantom, surface and source localization accuracy for data acquired with the laser scanner improved over the Polhemus by 141% and 132%, respectively. Laser scan digitization reduced MEG source localization error by 1.38 mm on average. In human participants, a laser scan of the face generated a 1000-fold more points per unit time than the Polhemus head digitization. An automated surface-matching algorithm improved the accuracy of MEG-MRI coregistration over the equivalent manual procedure. Simulations showed that the laser scan coverage could be reduced to an area around the eyes only while maintaining coregistration accuracy, suggesting that acquisition time can be substantially reduced. Our results show that the laser scanner can both reduce setup time and improve localization accuracy, in comparison to the Polhemus digitization system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".