The future of MEG: Improved task-related responses using optically-pumped magnetometers compared to a conventional system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Optically-pumped magnetometers (OPMs) offer a new wearable means to measure magnetoencephalography (MEG) signals, with many advantages compared to conventional systems. However, OPMs are an emerging technology, thus characterizing and replicating MEG recordings is essential. Using OPM and cryogenic MEG, this study investigated evoked responses, oscillatory power, and functional connectivity during emotion processing in 21 adults, to establish replicability across the two technologies. Five participants with dental fixtures were included to assess the validity of OPM recordings in those with irremovable metal. Replicable task-related evoked responses were observed in both modalities, with the OPMs demonstrating higher peak amplitude and improved signal-to-noise. Similar patterns of oscillatory power to faces were observed in both systems. Increased connectivity was found in cryogenic versus OPM MEG in an occipital and parietal anchored network. Notably, high quality OPM data were retained in participants with metallic fixtures, from whom no useable data was collected using cryogenic 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".