MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050554738 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/17/010

Evaluation of multiple-sphere head models for MEG source localization

2011· article· en· W2050554738 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc Lalancette, Maher A. Quraan, Douglas Cheyne

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanada Research ChairsUniversity Health NetworkHospital for Sick Children
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMagnetoencephalographySpherical modelComputer scienceInverseHead (geology)Inverse problemField (mathematics)Boundary (topology)AlgorithmBoundary element methodMathematicsMathematical analysisFinite element methodPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetoencephalography (MEG) source analysis has largely relied on spherical conductor models of the head to simplify forward calculations of the brain's magnetic field. Multiple- (or overlapping, local) sphere models, where an optimal sphere is selected for each sensor, are considered an improvement over single-sphere models and are computationally simpler than realistic models. However, there is limited information available regarding the different methods used to generate these models and their relative accuracy. We describe a variety of single- and multiple-sphere fitting approaches, including a novel method that attempts to minimize the field error. An accurate boundary element method simulation was used to evaluate the relative field measurement error (12% on average) and dipole fit localization bias (3.5 mm) of each model over the entire brain. All spherical models can contribute in the order of 1 cm to the localization bias in regions of the head that depart significantly from a sphere (inferior frontal and temporal). These spherical approximation errors can give rise to larger localization differences when all modeling effects are taken into account and with more complex source configurations or other inverse techniques, as shown with a beamformer example. Results differed noticeably depending on the source location, making it difficult to recommend a fitting method that performs best in general. Given these limitations, it may be advisable to expand the use of realistic head models.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.545
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.058 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207