Detection and localization of hippocampal activity using beamformers with MEG: A detailed investigation using simulations and empirical data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to detect neuronal activity emanating from deep brain structures such as the hippocampus using magnetoencephalography has been debated in the literature. While a significant number of recent publications reported activations from deep brain structures, others reported their inability to detect such activity even when other detection modalities confirmed its presence. In this article, we relied on realistic simulations to show that both sides of this debate are correct and that these findings are reconcilable. We show that the ability to detect such activations in evoked responses depends on the signal strength, the amount of brain noise background, the experimental design parameters, and the methodology used to detect them. Furthermore, we show that small signal strengths require contrasts with control conditions to be detected, particularly in the presence of strong brain noise backgrounds. We focus on one localization technique, the adaptive spatial filter (beamformer), and examine its strengths and weaknesses in reconstructing hippocampal activations, in the presence of other strong brain sources such as visual activations, and compare the performance of the vector and scalar beamformers under such conditions. We show that although a weight-normalized beamformer combined with a multisphere head model is not biased in the presence of uncorrelated random noise, it can be significantly biased in the presence of correlated brain noise. Furthermore, we show that the vector beamformer performs significantly better than the scalar under such conditions. We corroborate our findings empirically using real data and demonstrate our ability to detect and localize such sources.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".