Back

Reliability and signal comparison of OPM-MEG, fMRI & iEEG in a repeated movie viewing paradigm

Christiano, O. R.; Michelmann, S.

2025-07-18 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.07.14.664811 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Optically pumped magnetometers (OPMs) offer a promising advancement in noninvasive neuroimaging via magnetoencephalography (MEG), but establishing their reliability and comparability to existing methods remains an ongoing endeavor. Here, we evaluated OPM recordings by assessing their test-retest reliability and comparing them to functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) recordings. Data were collected from three independent participant groups during repeated viewings of a movie segment. In 7 canonical frequency bands ({delta}: 0.5-4 Hz,{theta} : 4-8 Hz, : 8-12 Hz, {beta}: 12-28 Hz,{gamma} 1: 28-46 Hz,{gamma} 2: 55-70 Hz, and HF: 64-116 Hz), as well as a broadband (BB: 0.5-116 Hz) signal, we quantified the signal consistency (1) within individuals, (2) across subjects, and (3) across modalities. OPM exhibited widespread reliability, particularly in lower frequency bands; spatial patterns resembled those of fMRI and iEEG in visual and auditory regions. Cross-modal analyses revealed robust correspondence between OPM and both fMRI and iEEG, including inverse correlations at low frequencies and positive correlations at higher frequencies in the OPM-fMRI comparison, consistent with known relationships between oscillatory power and BOLD responses. Comparisons of signal-to-noise (SNR) estimates further revealed that in some regions, the SNR of cross-modal alignment exceeded within-modality reliability, suggesting that bridging between modalities can sometimes enhance SNR by attenuating reliably shared noise. Our findings demonstrate that OPM consistently captures stimulus-locked neural dynamics that converge with established modalities.

Published in Imaging Neuroscience (predicted rank #2) · training set

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.