MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224252765 · doi:10.3390/s22083059

Calibration and Localization of Optically Pumped Magnetometers Using Electromagnetic Coils

2022· article· en· W4224252765 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsCoquitlam College
FundersNational Institutes of HealthEuropean Research CouncilNational Nuclear Security AdministrationNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringSandia National LaboratoriesU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsMagnetometerCalibrationPhysicsPosition (finance)Imaging phantomOrientation (vector space)AcousticsElectromagnetic coilMagnetic fieldOpticsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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