Optimal design of on‐scalp electromagnetic sensor arrays for brain source localisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optically pumped magnetometers (OPMs) are quickly widening the scopes of noninvasive neurophysiological imaging. The possibility of placing these magnetic field sensors on the scalp allows not only to acquire signals from people in movement, but also to reduce the distance between the sensors and the brain, with a consequent gain in the signal-to-noise ratio. These advantages make the technique particularly attractive to characterise sources of brain activity in demanding populations, such as children and patients with epilepsy. However, the technology is currently in an early stage, presenting new design challenges around the optimal sensor arrangement and their complementarity with other techniques as electroencephalography (EEG). In this article, we present an optimal array design strategy focussed on minimising the brain source localisation error. The methodology is based on the Cramér-Rao bound, which provides lower error bounds on the estimation of source parameters regardless of the algorithm used. We utilise this framework to compare whole head OPM arrays with commercially available electro/magnetoencephalography (E/MEG) systems for localising brain signal generators. In addition, we study the complementarity between EEG and OPM-based MEG, and design optimal whole head systems based on OPMs only and a combination of OPMs and EEG electrodes for characterising deep and superficial sources alike. Finally, we show the usefulness of the approach to find the nearly optimal sensor positions minimising the estimation error bound in a given cortical region when a limited number of OPMs are available. This is of special interest for maximising the performance of small scale systems to ad hoc neurophysiological experiments, a common situation arising in most OPM labs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".