Artificial neural networks for magnetoencephalography: a review of an emerging field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective . Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a cutting-edge neuroimaging technique that measures the intricate brain dynamics underlying cognitive processes with an unparalleled combination of high temporal and spatial precision. While MEG data analytics have traditionally relied on advanced signal processing and mathematical and statistical tools, the recent surge in artificial intelligence has led to the growing use of machine learning (ML) methods for MEG data classification. An emerging trend in this field is the use of artificial neural networks (ANNs) to address various MEG-related tasks. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in this area. Approach . This topical review included studies that applied ANNs to MEG data. Studies were sourced from PubMed, Google Scholar, arXiv, and bioRxiv using targeted search queries. The included studies were categorized into three groups: ‘Classification’, ‘Modeling’, and ‘Other’. Key findings and trends were summarized to provide a comprehensive assessment of the field. Main results . We identified 119 relevant studies, with 70 focused on ‘Classification’, 16 on ‘Modeling’, and 33 in the ‘Other’ category. ‘Classification’ studies addressed tasks such as brain decoding, clinical diagnostics, and brain–computer interfaces implementations, often achieving high predictive accuracy. ‘Modeling’ studies explored the alignment between ANN activations and brain processes, offering insights into the neural representations captured by these networks. The ‘Other’ category demonstrated innovative uses of ANNs for artifact correction, preprocessing, and neural source localization. Significance . By establishing a detailed portrait of the current state of the field, this review highlights the strengths and current limitations of ANNs in MEG research. It also provides practical recommendations for future work, offering a helpful reference for seasoned researchers and newcomers interested in using ANNs to explore the complex dynamics of the human brain with 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 | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".