Using optically pumped magnetometers to replicate task-related responses in next generation magnetoencephalography
Bibliographic record
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-MEG and SQUID-MEG, this study investigated evoked responses, oscillatory power, and functional connectivity during emotion processing in 20 adults, to establish replicability across the two technologies. Five participants with dental fixtures were included to assess the validity of OPM-MEG recordings in those with irremovable metal. Replicable task-related evoked responses were observed in both modalities. Similar patterns of oscillatory power to faces were observed in both systems. Increased connectivity was found in SQUID-versus OPM-MEG in an occipital and parietal anchored network. Notably, high quality OPM-MEG data were retained in participants with metallic fixtures, from whom no useable data were collected using conventional 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".