Literature DB >> 28007515

Measuring MEG closer to the brain: Performance of on-scalp sensor arrays.

Joonas Iivanainen1, Matti Stenroos2, Lauri Parkkonen3.   

Abstract

Optically-pumped magnetometers (OPMs) have recently reached sensitivity levels required for magnetoencephalography (MEG). OPMs do not need cryogenics and can thus be placed within millimetres from the scalp into an array that adapts to the individual head size and shape, thereby reducing the distance from cortical sources to the sensors. Here, we quantified the improvement in recording MEG with hypothetical on-scalp OPM arrays compared to a 306-channel state-of-the-art SQUID array (102 magnetometers and 204 planar gradiometers). We simulated OPM arrays that measured either normal (nOPM; 102 sensors), tangential (tOPM; 204 sensors), or all components (aOPM; 306 sensors) of the magnetic field. We built forward models based on magnetic resonance images of 10 adult heads; we employed a three-compartment boundary element model and distributed current dipoles evenly across the cortical mantle. Compared to the SQUID magnetometers, nOPM and tOPM yielded 7.5 and 5.3 times higher signal power, while the correlations between the field patterns of source dipoles were reduced by factors of 2.8 and 3.6, respectively. Values of the field-pattern correlations were similar across nOPM, tOPM and SQUID gradiometers. Volume currents reduced the signals of primary currents on average by 10%, 72% and 15% in nOPM, tOPM and SQUID magnetometers, respectively. The information capacities of the OPM arrays were clearly higher than that of the SQUID array. The dipole-localization accuracies of the arrays were similar while the minimum-norm-based point-spread functions were on average 2.4 and 2.5 times more spread for the SQUID array compared to nOPM and tOPM arrays, respectively.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Atomic magnetometer; Lead field; Magnetoencephalography; Optically-pumped magnetometer; Sensor array; Superconducting quantum interference device

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28007515      PMCID: PMC5432137          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  34 in total

1.  A sensor-weighted overlapping-sphere head model and exhaustive head model comparison for MEG.

Authors:  M X Huang; J C Mosher; R M Leahy
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  EEG and MEG: forward solutions for inverse methods.

Authors:  J C Mosher; R M Leahy; P S Lewis
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.538

3.  Monte Carlo simulation studies of EEG and MEG localization accuracy.

Authors:  Arthur K Liu; Anders M Dale; John W Belliveau
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Linear inverse solutions with optimal resolution kernels applied to electromagnetic tomography.

Authors:  R Grave de Peralta Menendez; O Hauk; S Gonzalez Andino; H Vogt; C Michel
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Distributed current estimates using cortical orientation constraints.

Authors:  Fa-Hsuan Lin; John W Belliveau; Anders M Dale; Matti S Hämäläinen
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  A Matlab library for solving quasi-static volume conduction problems using the boundary element method.

Authors:  M Stenroos; V Mäntynen; J Nenonen
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Quantification of the benefit from integrating MEG and EEG data in minimum l2-norm estimation.

Authors:  A Molins; S M Stufflebeam; E N Brown; M S Hämäläinen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Cortical surface-based analysis. II: Inflation, flattening, and a surface-based coordinate system.

Authors:  B Fischl; M I Sereno; A M Dale
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data.

Authors:  Alexandre Gramfort; Martin Luessi; Eric Larson; Denis A Engemann; Daniel Strohmeier; Christian Brodbeck; Lauri Parkkonen; Matti S Hämäläinen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Minimum-norm cortical source estimation in layered head models is robust against skull conductivity error.

Authors:  Matti Stenroos; Olaf Hauk
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 6.556

View more
  54 in total

1.  Magnetic Source Imaging Using a Pulsed Optically Pumped Magnetometer Array.

Authors:  Amir Borna; Tony R Carter; Paul DeRego; Conrad D James; Peter D D Schwindt
Journal:  IEEE Trans Instrum Meas       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 2.  New Cognitive Neurotechnology Facilitates Studies of Cortical-Subcortical Interactions.

Authors:  Byoung-Kyong Min; Matti S Hämäläinen; Dimitrios Pantazis
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 19.536

3.  A 20-channel magnetoencephalography system based on optically pumped magnetometers.

Authors:  Amir Borna; Tony R Carter; Josh D Goldberg; Anthony P Colombo; Yuan-Yu Jau; Christopher Berry; Jim McKay; Julia Stephen; Michael Weisend; Peter D D Schwindt
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Wearable neuroimaging: Combining and contrasting magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography.

Authors:  Elena Boto; Zelekha A Seedat; Niall Holmes; James Leggett; Ryan M Hill; Gillian Roberts; Vishal Shah; T Mark Fromhold; Karen J Mullinger; Tim M Tierney; Gareth R Barnes; Richard Bowtell; Matthew J Brookes
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Magnetic field compensation coil design for magnetoencephalography.

Authors:  Hermann Kutschka; Christian F Doeller; Jens Haueisen; Burkhard Maess
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  IFCN-endorsed practical guidelines for clinical magnetoencephalography (MEG).

Authors:  Riitta Hari; Sylvain Baillet; Gareth Barnes; Richard Burgess; Nina Forss; Joachim Gross; Matti Hämäläinen; Ole Jensen; Ryusuke Kakigi; François Mauguière; Nobukatzu Nakasato; Aina Puce; Gian-Luca Romani; Alfons Schnitzler; Samu Taulu
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  Boundary Element Fast Multipole Method for Enhanced Modeling of Neurophysiological Recordings.

Authors:  Sergey N Makarov; Matti Hamalainen; Yoshio Okada; Gregory M Noetscher; Jyrki Ahveninen; Aapo Nummenmaa
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-12-21       Impact factor: 4.538

8.  Practical real-time MEG-based neural interfacing with optically pumped magnetometers.

Authors:  Marc M Van Hulle; Richard Bowtell; Matthew J Brookes; Benjamin Wittevrongel; Niall Holmes; Elena Boto; Ryan Hill; Molly Rea; Arno Libert; Elvira Khachatryan
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2021-08-10       Impact factor: 7.431

9.  Multi-channel whole-head OPM-MEG: Helmet design and a comparison with a conventional system.

Authors:  Ryan M Hill; Elena Boto; Molly Rea; Niall Holmes; James Leggett; Laurence A Coles; Manolis Papastavrou; Sarah K Everton; Benjamin A E Hunt; Dominic Sims; James Osborne; Vishal Shah; Richard Bowtell; Matthew J Brookes
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Mouth magnetoencephalography: A unique perspective on the human hippocampus.

Authors:  Tim M Tierney; Andrew Levy; Daniel N Barry; Sofie S Meyer; Yoshihito Shigihara; Matt Everatt; Stephanie Mellor; Jose David Lopez; Sven Bestmann; Niall Holmes; Gillian Roberts; Ryan M Hill; Elena Boto; James Leggett; Vishal Shah; Matthew J Brookes; Richard Bowtell; Eleanor A Maguire; Gareth R Barnes
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.