Calibration and Localization of Optically Pumped Magnetometers Using Electromagnetic Coils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a method to estimate the position, orientation, and gain of a magnetic field sensor using a set of (large) electromagnetic coils. We apply the method for calibrating an array of optically pumped magnetometers (OPMs) for magnetoencephalography (MEG). We first measure the magnetic fields of the coils at multiple known positions using a well-calibrated triaxial magnetometer, and model these discreetly sampled fields using vector spherical harmonics (VSH) functions. We then localize and calibrate an OPM by minimizing the sum of squared errors between the model signals and the OPM responses to the coil fields. We show that by using homogeneous and first-order gradient fields, the OPM sensor parameters (gain, position, and orientation) can be obtained from a set of linear equations with pseudo-inverses of two matrices. The currents that should be applied to the coils for approximating these low-order field components can be determined based on the VSH models. Computationally simple initial estimates of the OPM sensor parameters follow. As a first test of the method, we placed a fluxgate magnetometer at multiple positions and estimated the RMS position, orientation, and gain errors of the method to be 1.0 mm, 0.2°, and 0.8%, respectively. Lastly, we calibrated a 48-channel OPM array. The accuracy of the OPM calibration was tested by using the OPM array to localize magnetic dipoles in a phantom, which resulted in an average dipole position error of 3.3 mm. The results demonstrate the feasibility of using electromagnetic coils to calibrate and localize OPMs for MEG.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".