MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410354296 · doi:10.1162/imag.a.22

Optimal configuration of on-scalp OPMs with fixed channel counts

2025· article· en· W4410354296 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

VenueImaging Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsSurrey Memorial HospitalSimon Fraser UniversityFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalpChannel (broadcasting)MathematicsComputer scienceBiologyAnatomyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent technological developments have brought optically pumped magnetometers (OPMs) within reach of the larger neuroscientific community. The current state-of-the-art consists of whole-head systems that measure the magnetic field at >100 locations. OPM sensors can be constructed to measure the field in either 1, 2, or 3 orientations. Consequently, the number of channels can differ from the number of sensors. This allows for magnetoencephalography (MEG) system designs with multiple measurement orientations at fewer locations, many locations with fewer orientations, or, ideally, many locations with multiple orientations. Yet, due to budget constraints, starting OPM groups are typically getting fewer sensors than what could, in principle, be accommodated in a whole head helmet-like arrangement. Furthermore, implementing multiple orientations in a single sensor comes at a cost and hardware companies are still optimizing the trade-offs between sensor designs. To guide the OPM systems design, it is relevant to know the optimal spatial distribution and sensing orientation of OPMs. We performed a simulation study in which we kept the total number of channels constant. We compared 3 synthetic 192-channel OPM arrays that were composed of either monoaxial, biaxial or triaxial sensors, where the sensors were placed at either 192, 96, or 64 measurement locations, respectively. We simulated multiple instances of an MEG signal due to a dipolar source in the brain, contaminated by various combinations of noise, considering sensor noise, brain noise, and noise induced by head (and sensor) movements in the residual ambient magnetic field. An optimal design of the MEG system serves both to record the activity of the brain, as well as the environmental noise that is to be suppressed. We performed dipole fits and evaluated the localization error and the amplitude of the estimated dipole moment. We cleaned the data using various spatio(temporal) cleaning strategies prior to fitting the dipoles. Our observations confirm earlier work, in that 1) the sensing orientation radial to the head is in general more optimal to pick up activity from the brain than tangential directions, but that 2) adding sensing orientations tangential to the head surface helps in suppressing ambient noise sources. Yet, we did not observe a clear improvement comparing triaxial with biaxial OPMs. Given that triaxial sensing may come at the expense of reduced spatial sampling over the head and reduced signal-to-noise for individual channels, we conclude that, given a fixed number of channels, biaxial sensors may be preferred with the currently available technology.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · 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