Using OPM-MEG in contrasting magnetic environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has been revolutionised in recent years by optically pumped magnetometers (OPMs). “OPM-MEG” offers higher sensitivity, better spatial resolution and lower cost than conventional instrumentation based on superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDS). Moreover, OPMs offer the possibility of motion robustness and lifespan compliance, dramatically expanding the range of MEG applications. However, OPM-MEG remains nascent technology; it places stringent requirements on magnetic shielding, and whilst a number of viable systems exist, most are custom made and there have been no cross-site investigations showing the reliability of data. In this paper, we undertake the first cross-site OPM-MEG comparison, using near identical commercial systems scanning the same participant. The two sites are deliberately contrasting, with different magnetic environments: a “green field” campus university site with an OPM-optimised shielded room (low interference) and a city centre hospital site with a “standard” (non-optimised) MSR (high interference). We show that despite a 25-fold difference in background field, and a 30-fold difference in low frequency interference, using dynamic field control and software-based suppression of interference we can generate comparable noise floors at both sites. In human data recorded during a visuo-motor task and a face processing paradigm, we were able to generate similar data, with source localisation showing that brain regions could be pinpointed with just ~10 mm spatial discrepancy and temporal correlations of > 80%. Overall, our study demonstrates that “plug- and-play” OPM-MEG systems exist and can be sited even in challenging magnetic environments.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".