MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322280599 · doi:10.1097/wnp.0b013e3182121843

Realignment of Magnetoencephalographic Data for Group Analysis in the Sensor Domain

2011· article· en· W2322280599 on OpenAlexaff
Bernhard Roß, Rebecca E. M. Charron, Shahab Jamali

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetoencephalographyComputer scienceSmoothingSensor arrayArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmComputer visionElectroencephalographyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a neuroimaging modality with high temporal resolution for studying functional brain processes in relatively small neural assemblies on the time scale of <100 milliseconds and with synchrony and coherence in the recorded signals at high frequencies. Advanced MEG signal analysis gained importance for clinical applications, e.g., as a sensitive classifier for the diagnosis of neuropsychiatric disorders. Despite tremendous improvements in magnetic source imaging, MEG analysis often does not require explicit source estimation and can be performed in the sensor domain. However, group analysis of MEG sensor data is complicated by variable positioning of the sensor array relative to the head and needs realignment of the sensor configuration. Here, the authors provide an algorithm for transforming the magnetic field data as recorded at various sensor positions onto a common sensor array. Based on the measured magnetic field at the original sensor position, they estimate a source distribution and project it onto a virtual sensor array using the leadfield description of the magnetic forward solution. First, they analyzed the variation of sensor positioning in a typical MEG study and reported the impact on the leadfield matrix. Then they evaluated the realignment algorithm and reported its properties. Including efficient regularization to the inverse solution, they demonstrated that the introduced error is in the order of the sensor noise, and smoothing of data is limited to the set of smallest eigenvalues of the data. They demonstrated the performance of the algorithm with dipole source modeling on group averaged MEG data and comparison of grand averaged auditory evoked responses with and without sensor realignment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NeurophysiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207