Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Optimisation of Magnetic Field Sensing with Optically Pumped Magnetometers for Magnetic Detection Electrical Impedance Tomography

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For MDEIT brain imaging, the best magnetometer configuration is a single axis normal to the scalp, and larger sensors improve image quality.

desk verdict Useful parameter sweep for OPM-based MDEIT, but the cell-volume headline rests on a real arithmetic error in Table 2 and should be re-run. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13354 v1 pith:3WA6N6DC submitted 2024-12-17 physics.med-ph physics.atom-ph

Kai Mason , Florencia Maurino-Alperovich , Kirill Aristovich , David Holder This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords magneticdetectionelectricalimpedancetomographyopticallypumpedmagnetometerimagereconstructionsensoroptimisationvapourcellvolumeneuralactivityimagingcomputationalmodellingweightedspatialvariance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to determine the optimal arrangement of optically pumped magnetometers for Magnetic Detection Electrical Impedance Tomography, a proposed technique for non-invasively imaging fast neural activity. Using computational models of the human head, it compares sensing axes, array sizes, and vapour-cell volumes. It finds that measuring only the magnetic field component normal to the scalp gives the best reconstructed images, and that image quality increases as the magnetometer's vapour cell grows. This matters because it suggests future MDEIT-specific OPMs need not copy the small cell sizes of current commercial sensors, and can instead use larger, more sensitive cells to meet the demanding bandwidth and sensitivity requirements.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a simulation pipeline, but the load-bearing physical identity is the fundamental sensitivity limit of an OPM: $\delta B_{\mathrm{opt}} = \frac{\sqrt{2\,BW}}{\gamma \sqrt{nV}}$, which says that for fixed atomic density $n$, bandwidth $BW$, and gyromagnetic ratio $\gamma$, the sensor noise floor falls as the inverse square root of the vapour-cell volume $V$. The paper scales the intrinsic noise for five cell sizes using this formula, adds environmental and current-source noise, embeds the sensors in a finite-element head model, and reconstructs images. Image quality is scored with the weighted spatial variance, a metric that measures how closely the reconstructed conductivity blob matches the true perturbation's location and extent.

What would settle it

Measure the intrinsic noise of OPMs with different vapour-cell volumes while holding atomic density and bandwidth constant; if the noise does not fall as $1/\sqrt{V}$, the predicted image-quality gain from larger cells will not appear. Alternatively, build a phantom MDEIT system with two OPM sizes and check whether reconstructed image quality actually improves with volume as the simulations predict.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a design rule: for MDEIT, the optimal OPM configuration is a single sensing axis normal to the scalp, and larger vapour cells improve reconstructed image quality. This conclusion comes from finite-element simulations of a seven-tissue human head with four neural perturbations, image reconstruction using 0th-order Tikhonov regularisation with uncorrelated noise-based correction, and assessment using the weighted spatial variance. The authors report that single-axis normal measurements produced the largest signal-to-noise ratio and best image quality, that adding tangential axes introduced noisy measurements that degraded quality, and that increasing vapour-cell side length from 1 mm to 18 mm reduced sensor noise and improved image quality while the rank of the Jacobian stayed constant.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a larger OPM vapour cell can be operated with the same atomic density and bandwidth, so that its intrinsic noise drops as the inverse square root of the volume; if real larger cells cannot maintain those parameters, the predicted size benefit disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future OPMs built for MDEIT should prioritise a single high-sensitivity axis normal to the scalp over multi-axis capability.
  • Arrays of roughly 48 to 96 single-axis sensors are practically suitable; going beyond about 128 gives little additional benefit, and around 32 may suffice for cortical activity.
  • Manufacturers can increase vapour-cell volume beyond current commercial sizes to gain sensitivity and bandwidth, potentially approaching SQUID-level performance without cryogenic cooling.
  • For a fixed total number of measurements, using more magnetometers is more beneficial than using multi-axis measurements on fewer magnetometers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the $1/\sqrt{V}$ noise scaling holds experimentally, the cell-volume benefit could extend to other on-scalp magnetic sensing applications, not just MDEIT, wherever spatial averaging is acceptable.
  • The paper shows the Jacobian rank is unchanged by cell size, but real larger cells may also increase standoff distance and power draw; whether those practical penalties offset the sensitivity gain is a question for hardware prototypes.
  • One testable extension is to verify the exact noise values in Table 2 against direct measurements of OPMs with different cell volumes, since the table's numbers appear to derive from a single 3 mm reference cell and may not reflect practical operation at constant atomic density and bandwidth.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This computational modelling study optimises the sensing axis, sensor number, and vapour cell volume of optically pumped magnetometers (OPMs) for Magnetic Detection Electrical Impedance Tomography (MDEIT). Using an anatomically realistic finite-element head model, the authors simulate forward and inverse problems with four neural perturbations at different depths, add realistic noise, and evaluate reconstructed image quality with weighted spatial variance (WSV). They report that single-axis measurements normal to the scalp give the best image quality, that image quality improves with increasing sensor number but with diminishing returns, and that larger OPM vapour cell volumes improve image quality because of the assumed 1/sqrt(V) sensitivity scaling. The paper concludes that future OPMs for MDEIT should be single-axis, highly sensitive, and not necessarily constrained to the sizes of current commercial sensors.

Significance. The paper addresses a practically important hardware-design question for a novel neuroimaging technique, and the computational framework is careful in several respects: the forward model is realistic, the inverse crime is avoided by using different forward and reconstruction meshes, four perturbations at different depths are considered, and statistical testing is performed over 100 noise realisations. The sensing-axis and sensor-number results appear consistent with the described methods and provide useful design guidance. The cell-volume finding, if it survives re-analysis with corrected noise values, would be a significant driver for OPM development. However, the cell-volume result is a direct consequence of the assumed fundamental-sensitivity scaling rather than an independent empirical discovery; the main non-trivial aspect is the demonstration that spatial averaging and standoff effects do not negate the sensitivity gain, as evidenced by the constant Jacobian rank.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.4, Table 2]
  2. [Section 4.6 and Eq. (3)]
minor comments (4)
  1. [References]
  2. [Throughout text]
  3. [Section 2.4]
  4. [Section 4.4]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the optimisation results are genuine outputs of a forward/inverse simulation, though the cell-volume conclusion is directly shaped by the assumed 1/sqrt(V) sensitivity scaling.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (single-axis normal best, diminishing returns with sensor count, and image quality rising with OPM cell volume) are outputs of explicit FEM forward/inverse simulations with additive and multiplicative noise models, not fits to the quantities they claim to predict. The cell-volume result is the least independent: Section 2.4 sets the OPM noise from Eq. 3, which has sensitivity proportional to 1/sqrt(V), so the SNR benefit of larger cells is built into the input. However, the paper states this openly, and the simulation still tests the nontrivial question of whether spatial averaging of the forward field over a larger cell destroys the benefit; the rank of the Jacobian and WSV results are not tautological. Self-citations to [5] and [20] are used for the FEM, noise case, and U-NBC reconstruction algorithm; they are disclosed methodological lineage, not load-bearing appeals to an unverified uniqueness theorem or a fitted result. One correctness concern is flagged: Table 2's 'total noise after 232 measurement averages' appears to omit the sqrt(bandwidth) factor used in Section 2.2; for example, 261 fT/rtHz for the 1 mm cell becomes 17.1 fT instead of approximately 542 fT if S times sqrt(1000) divided by sqrt(232) is applied. This would change absolute SNR levels and the balance against current-source noise, although the common multiplicative factor preserves the relative ordering across cell sizes. This is a numerical and validation issue, not a circularity. Overall, no significant circularity is present; the score of 2 reflects the heavy but non-circular reliance on the authors' own prior modelling and reconstruction tools.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a chosen noise model, a single forward model, and an OPM sensitivity scaling law from the literature. The key free choices are the bandwidth, atomic density, number of averages, and the WSV threshold. The cell-volume result is largely entailed by the assumed 1/sqrt(V) scaling; if that scaling is not achievable in practice, the conclusion changes.

free parameters (4)
  • Bandwidth BW = 500 Hz
    Chosen to match the MDEIT requirement of ±500 Hz bandwidth; used in Eq. 3 and noise calculations for all cell sizes. The cell-volume conclusions depend on BW through the absolute noise level, not the relative scaling.
  • Atomic density n = 1.5e11 mm^-3
    Example SERF 87Rb density taken from literature and assumed constant for all cell sizes; if density cannot be maintained in larger cells, the sensitivity scaling changes.
  • Number of measurement averages = 232
    Assumed from prior noise case [5]; affects absolute noise but not relative comparison between configurations.
  • WSV threshold = 50% of maximum reconstructed conductivity
    Images were thresholded at 50% before computing weighted spatial variance; different thresholds could change image quality rankings.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 7-tissue FEM of the human head is an accurate representation for modelling MDEIT.
    Section 2.1: the model is the forward problem basis; if tissue conductivities are wrong, the field perturbations and image quality estimates change.
  • domain assumption The perturbation (1% conductivity increase, 3.86 cm^3) represents fast neural activity.
    Section 1.3.1: this is the best estimate from literature; the results are specific to this perturbation size and depth.
  • standard math OPM sensitivity scales as 1/sqrt(V) with constant n, BW, and gamma (Eq. 3).
    Section 2.4: the cell-volume optimization assumes this scaling for all cell sizes; it is the key premise behind the conclusion that larger cells improve image quality.
  • domain assumption The noise model (uncorrelated additive plus correlated multiplicative, Noise Case 1 from [5]) is realistic.
    Section 2.2: the axis and number optimizations depend on this noise model; if current-source noise or environmental noise differ, the optimal configuration could change.
  • domain assumption Tikhonov regularization with U-NBC and the WSV metric are appropriate for evaluating image quality.
    Sections 2.5 and 2.6: reconstruction and figure-of-merit choices affect all comparisons; a different regularizer or metric could alter rankings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimisation of Magnetic Field Sensing with Optically Pumped Magnetometers for Magnetic Detection Electrical Impedance Tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3WA6N6DC

@misc{pith2026241213354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimisation of Magnetic Field Sensing with Optically Pumped Magnetometers for Magnetic Detection Electrical Impedance Tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3WA6N6DC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13354}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic Detection Electrical Impedance Tomography is a novel technique that could enable non-invasive imaging of fast neural activity in the brain. However, commercial magnetometers are not suited to its technical requirements. Computational modelling was used to determine the optimal number, size and orientation of magnetometers, to inform the future development of MDEIT-specific magnetometers. Images were reconstructed using three sensing axes, arrays of 16 to 160 magnetometers, and cell sizes ranging from 1 to 18 mm. Image quality was evaluated visually and with the weighted spatial variance. Single-axis measurements normal to the surface provided the best image quality, and image quality increased with an increase in sensor number and size. This study can inform future OPM design, showing the size of the vapour cell need not be constrained to that of commercially available OPMs, and that a small array of single-axis, highly sensitive sensors is optimal for MDEIT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13354 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A graphic representation of the FEM used in this work showing the four perturbations. Each slice was taken through the centre of mass of the perturbation in each case. Reprinted from [5]. 2.2 Optimisation of Sensing Axes For optimisation of the sensing axis and number of sensing axes, 64 magnetometers were modelled as zero-dimensional points in space at a distance of 6.5 mm from the scalp. The positions of the magne… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The effect of the OPM sensing axis on the image quality. (A) Example reconstructions for each perturbation with single-axis MDEIT. Each image is a sagittal slice of a three-dimensional reconstruction taken through the centre of mass of the perturbation. All images have been thresholded at 50 % of the largest increase in conductivity. (B) The WSV (mean ± SD) for image reconstructions with single-axis MDEIT for all fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The effect of the number of OPM sensing axes on the image quality. (A) Example reconstructions for each perturbation with one-, two- or three-axis MDEIT. Each image is a sagittal slice of a three-dimensional reconstruction taken through the centre of mass of the perturbation. All images have been thresholded at 50 % of the largest increase in conductivity. (B) The WSV (mean ± SD) for image reconstructions with 1-, 2… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The effect of the number of OPMs on the image quality. (A) Example reconstructions for each perturbation with MDEIT with arrays of 16 to 160 magnetometers. Each image is a sagittal slice of a three-dimensional reconstruction taken through the centre of mass of the pert…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The effect of the OPM sensing volume on the image quality. (A) Example reconstructions for each perturbation with MDEIT with 64 magnetometers ranging from 1 to 18 mm in size. Each image is a sagittal slice of a three-dimensional reconstruction taken through the centre …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI,

    N. K. Logothetis, “What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI,” Nature, vol. 453, no. 7197, pp. 869–878, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Adler and D

    A. Adler and D. Holder, Electrical Impedance Tomography: Methods, History and Applications , ser. Series in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering. CRC Press, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5bBZEAAAQBAJ

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    P. C. Hansen, M. L. Kringelbach, and R. Salmelin, MEG: An Introduction to Methods . Oxford University Press, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    The Feasibility of Fast Neural Magnetic Detection Electrical Impedance Tomography: A Modelling Study,

    K. Mason, K. Aristovich, and D. Holder, “The Feasibility of Fast Neural Magnetic Detection Electrical Impedance Tomography: A Modelling Study,” International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering, NER , vol. 2023-April, pp. 1–4, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Non-invasive imaging of neural activity with magnetic detection electrical impedance tomography (MDEIT): a modelling study,

    ——, “Non-invasive imaging of neural activity with magnetic detection electrical impedance tomography (MDEIT): a modelling study,” Physiological Measurement, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/2053-1583/abe778

    work page doi:10.1088/2053-1583/abe778 2023

  6. [6]

    Towards magnetic detection electrical impedance tomography: Data acquisition and image reconstruction of current density in phantoms and in vivo,

    R. H. Ireland, J. C. Tozer, A. T. Barker, and D. C. Barber, “Towards magnetic detection electrical impedance tomography: Data acquisition and image reconstruction of current density in phantoms and in vivo,”Physiological Measurement, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 775–796, 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Feasibility of imaging evoked activity throughout the rat brain using electrical impedance tomography,

    M. Faulkner, S. Hannan, K. Aristovich, J. Avery, and D. Holder, “Feasibility of imaging evoked activity throughout the rat brain using electrical impedance tomography,” NeuroImage, vol. 178, no. February, pp. 1–10,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Impedance changes recorded with scalp electrodes during visual evoked responses: Implications for Electrical Impedance Tomography of fast neural activity,

    O. Gilad and D. S. Holder, “Impedance changes recorded with scalp electrodes during visual evoked responses: Implications for Electrical Impedance Tomography of fast neural activity,” pp. 514–522, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Characterising the frequency response of impedance changes during evoked physiological activity in the rat brain,

    M. Faulkner, S. Hannan, K. Aristovich, J. Avery, and D. Holder, “Characterising the frequency response of impedance changes during evoked physiological activity in the rat brain,”Physiological Measurement, vol. 39, no. 3, p. 034007, 4 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org...

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Elekta Neuromag®,

    E. Neuromag and E. Neuromag, “Elekta Neuromag®,” 2008

    2008

  3. [11]

    Ultra-sensitive SQUID systems for applications in biomagnetism and ultra-low field MRI,

    R. Körber, O. Kieler, P. Hömmen, N. Höfner, and J. H. Storm, “Ultra-sensitive SQUID systems for applications in biomagnetism and ultra-low field MRI,” in ISEC 2019 - International Superconductive Electronics Conference , 2019, pp. 18–20

    2019

  4. [12]

    DC SQUID Series Array Amplifiers With 120 MHZ Bandwidth (Corrected),

    M. E. Huber, P. A. Neil, R. G. Benson, D. A. Bums, A. Corey, C. S. Flynn, Y . Kitaygoradskaya, O. Massihzaueh, J. M. Martinis, and G. Chilton, “DC SQUID Series Array Amplifiers With 120 MHZ Bandwidth (Corrected),” IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, vol. 11, no. 2,...

    2001

  5. [13]

    Ultra-low-noise EEG/MEG systems enable bimodal non-invasive detection of spike-like human somatosensory evoked responses at 1 kHz,

    T. Fedele, H. J. Scheer, M. Burghoff, G. Curio, and R. Körber, “Ultra-low-noise EEG/MEG systems enable bimodal non-invasive detection of spike-like human somatosensory evoked responses at 1 kHz,”Physiological Measurement, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 357–368, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    An ultra-sensitive and wideband magnetometer based on a superconducting quantum interference device,

    J. H. Storm, P. Hömmen, D. Drung, and R. Körber, “An ultra-sensitive and wideband magnetometer based on a superconducting quantum interference device,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 110, no. 7, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4976823

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    A modular, extendible and field-tolerant multichannel vector magnetometer based on current sensor squids,

    J. H. Storm, D. Drung, M. Burghoff, and R. Körber, “A modular, extendible and field-tolerant multichannel vector magnetometer based on current sensor squids,” Superconductor Science and Technology, vol. 29, 7 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Squid current sensors with an integrated thermally actuated input current limiter,

    R. Körber, P. Krzysteczko, M. Klemm, T. Liu, J. H. Storm, and J. Beyer, “Squid current sensors with an integrated thermally actuated input current limiter,” Superconductor Science and Technology, vol. 36, 7 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Magnetoen- cephalogram systems developed at kit,

    H. Kado, M. Higuchi, M. Shimogawara, Y . Haruta, Y . Adachi, J. Kawai, H. Ogata, and G. Uehara, “Magnetoen- cephalogram systems developed at kit,” 1999

    1999

  10. [18]

    The atomic magnetometer: A new era in biomagnetism,

    R. T. Wakai, “The atomic magnetometer: A new era in biomagnetism,”AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1626, pp. 46–54, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Magnetocardiography measurements with 4He vector optically pumped magnetometers at room temperature,

    S. Morales, M. C. Corsi, W. Fourcault, F. Bertrand, G. Cauffet, C. Gobbo, F. Alcouffe, F. Lenouvel, M. Le Prado, F. Berger, G. Vanzetto, and E. Labyt, “Magnetocardiography measurements with 4He vector optically pumped magnetometers at room temperature,” Physics in Medicine and...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Noise-based correction for electrical impedance tomography,

    K. Mason, F. Maurino-Alperovich, D. Holder, and K. Aristovich, “Noise-based correction for electrical impedance tomography,” Physiological Measurement, vol. 45, no. 6, p. 065002, 2024. 14 Optimisation of OPMs for MDEIT

    2024

  13. [21]

    Simplifying the hardware requirements for fast neural EIT of peripheral nerves,

    E. Ravagli, S. Mastitskaya, D. Holder, and K. Aristovich, “Simplifying the hardware requirements for fast neural EIT of peripheral nerves,” Physiological Measurement, vol. 43, no. 1, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Optically pumped magnetometers: From quantum origins to multi-channel magnetoencephalography,

    T. M. Tierney, N. Holmes, S. Mellor, J. D. López, G. Roberts, R. M. Hill, E. Boto, J. Leggett, V . Shah, M. J. Brookes, R. Bowtell, and G. R. Barnes, “Optically pumped magnetometers: From quantum origins to multi-channel magnetoencephalography,” NeuroImage, vol. 199, no. Decem...

    2018

  15. [23]

    P. C. Hansen, Discrete inverse problems: insight and algorithms . SIAM, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Optimising the sensing volume of OPM sensors for MEG source reconstruction,

    Y . Bezsudnova, L. M. Koponen, G. Barontini, and O. Jensen, “Optimising the sensing volume of OPM sensors for MEG source reconstruction,” NeuroImage, vol. 264, no. June, pp. 1–11, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119747

    2022

  17. [25]

    QZFM, QuSpin,

    Quspin, “QZFM, QuSpin,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://quspin.com/products-qzfm/

    2022

  18. [26]

    Fieldline,

    F. Inc., “Fieldline,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://fieldlineinc.com/

    2023

  19. [27]

    Mag4health,

    MAG4Health, “Mag4health,” https://www.mag4health.com/product/, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

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

    R. M. Hill, E. Boto, M. Rea, N. Holmes, J. Leggett, L. A. Coles, M. Papastavrou, S. K. Everton, B. A. Hunt, D. Sims, J. Osborne, V . Shah, R. Bowtell, and M. J. Brookes, “Multi-channel whole-head OPM-MEG: Helmet design and a comparison with a conventional system,” NeuroImage, ...

    2020

  21. [29]

    A 20-channel magnetoencephalography system based on optically pumped magnetometers,

    A. Borna, T. R. Carter, J. D. Goldberg, A. P. Colombo, Y . Y . Jau, C. Berry, J. McKay, J. Stephen, M. Weisend, and P. D. Schwindt, “A 20-channel magnetoencephalography system based on optically pumped magnetometers,” Physics in Medicine and Biology , vol. 62, no. 23, pp. 8909...

    2017

  22. [30]

    How to build a magnetometer with thermal atomic vapor: a tutorial,

    A. Fabricant, I. Novikova, and G. Bison, “How to build a magnetometer with thermal atomic vapor: a tutorial,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 25, no. 2, p. 025001, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Magnetoencephalography with optically pumped magnetometers (OPM-MEG): the next generation of functional neuroimaging,

    M. J. Brookes, J. Leggett, M. Rea, R. M. Hill, N. Holmes, E. Boto, and R. Bowtell, “Magnetoencephalography with optically pumped magnetometers (OPM-MEG): the next generation of functional neuroimaging,” Trends in Neurosciences, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 621–634, 2022. [Online]. Avai...

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Four-channel optically pumped atomic magnetometer for magnetoencephalography,

    A. P. Colombo, T. R. Carter, A. Borna, Y .-Y . Jau, C. N. Johnson, A. L. Dagel, and P. D. D. Schwindt, “Four-channel optically pumped atomic magnetometer for magnetoencephalography,” Optics Express, vol. 24, no. 14, p. 15403, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    An integrated full-head OPM-MEG system based on 128 zero-field sensors,

    O. Alem, K. J. Hughes, I. Buard, T. P. Cheung, T. Maydew, A. Griesshammer, K. Holloway, A. Park, V . Lechuga, C. Coolidge, M. Gerginov, E. Quigg, A. Seames, E. Kronberg, P. Teale, and S. Knappe, “An integrated full-head OPM-MEG system based on 128 zero-field sensors,” Frontier...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Grosz, M

    A. Grosz, M. J. Haji-Sheikh, and S. C. Mukhopadhyay, High Sensitivity Magnetometers. Springer, 2017, vol. 19. [Online]. Available: http://www.springer.com/series/10617

    2017

  27. [35]

    Magnetoencephalography with optically pumped 4 He magnetometers at ambient temperature,

    E. Labyt, M. C. Corsi, W. Fourcault, A. Palacios Laloy, F. Bertrand, F. Lenouvel, G. Cauffet, M. Le Prado, F. Berger, and S. Morales, “Magnetoencephalography with optically pumped 4 He magnetometers at ambient temperature,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 38, no. 1,...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Budker and D

    D. Budker and D. F. J. Kimball, Optical Magnetometry. Cambridge University Press, 2004, vol. 39, no. 2

    2004

  29. [37]

    Can a quantum nondemolition measurement improve the sensitivity of an atomic magnetometer?

    M. Auzinsh, D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, S. M. Rochester, J. E. Stalnaker, A. O. Sushkov, and V . V . Yashchuk, “Can a quantum nondemolition measurement improve the sensitivity of an atomic magnetometer?” Physical Review Letters, vol. 93, no. 17, pp. 1–4, 2004

    2004

  30. [38]

    High-sensitivity atomic magnetometer unaffected by spin-exchange relaxation,

    J. C. Allred, R. N. Lyman, T. W. Kornack, and M. V . Romalis, “High-sensitivity atomic magnetometer unaffected by spin-exchange relaxation,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 89, no. 13, pp. 1 308 011–1 308 014, 2002

    2002

  31. [39]

    Towards a miniature atomic scalar magnetometer using a liquid crystal polarization rotator,

    J. Rutkowski, W. Fourcault, F. Bertrand, U. Rossini, S. Gétin, S. Le Calvez, T. Jager, E. Herth, C. Gorecki, M. Le Prado, J. M. Léger, and S. Morales, “Towards a miniature atomic scalar magnetometer using a liquid crystal polarization rotator,” Sensors and Actuators, A: Physic...

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    A compact, high performance atomic magnetometer for biomedical applications,

    V . K. Shah and R. T. Wakai, “A compact, high performance atomic magnetometer for biomedical applications,” Physics in Medicine and Biology , vol. 58, no. 22, pp. 8153–8161, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    Fully integrated standalone zero field optically pumped magnetometer for biomagnetism,

    J. Osborne, J. Orton, O. Alem, and V . Shah, “Fully integrated standalone zero field optically pumped magnetometer for biomagnetism,” in Steep dispersion engineering and opto-atomic precision metrology XI , vol. 10548. SPIE, 2018, pp. 89–95. 15 Optimisation of OPMs for MDEIT

    2018

  34. [42]

    A 90-channel triaxial magnetoencephalography system using optically pumped magnetometers,

    M. Rea, E. Boto, N. Holmes, R. Hill, J. Osborne, N. Rhodes, J. Leggett, L. Rier, R. Bowtell, V . Shah, and M. J. Brookes, “A 90-channel triaxial magnetoencephalography system using optically pumped magnetometers,”Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , vol. 1517, no. 1, p...

    2022

  35. [43]

    Helium-4 magnetometers for room-temperature biomedical imaging: toward collective operation and photon-noise limited sensitivity,

    W. Fourcault, R. Romain, G. Le Gal, F. Bertrand, V . Josselin, M. Le Prado, E. Labyt, and A. Palacios-Laloy, “Helium-4 magnetometers for room-temperature biomedical imaging: toward collective operation and photon-noise limited sensitivity,” Optics Express, vol. 29, no. 10, p. ...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Characterization of noise sources in a microfabricated single-beam zero-field optically-pumped magnetometer,

    S. P. Krzyzewski, A. R. Perry, V . Gerginov, and S. Knappe, “Characterization of noise sources in a microfabricated single-beam zero-field optically-pumped magnetometer,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 126, no. 4, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Subpicotesla atomic magnetometry with a microfabricated vapour cell,

    V . Shah, S. Knappe, P. D. Schwindt, and J. Kitching, “Subpicotesla atomic magnetometry with a microfabricated vapour cell,” Nature Photonics, vol. 1, no. 11, pp. 649–652, 2007

    2007

  38. [46]

    Preliminary studies in imaging neuronal depolarization in the brain with Electrical or Magnetic Detection Impedance Tomography,

    O. Gilad, “Preliminary studies in imaging neuronal depolarization in the brain with Electrical or Magnetic Detection Impedance Tomography,” Ph.D. dissertation, University College London, 2007

    2007

  39. [47]

    Human Cerebral Activation during Steady-State Visual-Evoked Responses,

    M. A. Pastor, J. Artieda, J. Arbizu, M. Valencia, and J. C. Masdeu, “Human Cerebral Activation during Steady-State Visual-Evoked Responses,”Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 23, no. 37, pp. 11 621–11 627, 2003

    2003

  40. [48]

    Nowinski, Introduction to Brain Anatomy

    W. Nowinski, Introduction to Brain Anatomy. Springer, 07 2011

    2011

  41. [49]

    Liston, R

    A. Liston, R. Bayford, and D. Holder, “A cable theory based biophysical model of resistance change in crab peripheral nerve and human cerebral cortex during neuronal depolarisation: Implications for electrical impedance tomography of fast neural activity in the brain,” pp. 425...

    2012 doi

  42. [50]

    Optimisation of current injection protocol based on a region of interest,

    M. Faulkner, M. Jehl, K. Aristovich, J. Avery, A. Witkowska-Wrobel, and D. Holder, “Optimisation of current injection protocol based on a region of interest,” Physiological Measurement, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1158–1175, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    EIT reconstruction algorithms: Pitfalls, challenges and recent developments,

    W. R. Lionheart, “EIT reconstruction algorithms: Pitfalls, challenges and recent developments,”Physiological Measurement, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 125–142, 2004

    2004

  44. [52]

    Imaging fast electrical activity in the brain with electrical impedance tomography,

    K. Y . Aristovich, B. C. Packham, H. Koo, G. S. dos Santos, A. McEvoy, and D. S. Holder, “Imaging fast electrical activity in the brain with electrical impedance tomography,” NeuroImage, vol. 124, pp. 204–213, 1 2016. [Online]. Available: url{http://creativecommons.org/license...

    2016

  45. [53]

    Are patient specific meshes required for eit head imaging ?

    M. Jehl, K. Aristovich, and M. Faulkner, “Are patient specific meshes required for eit head imaging ?” Physiologi- cal Measurement, 2016

    2016

  46. [54]

    A versatile and reproducible multi-frequency electrical impedance tomography system,

    J. Avery, T. Dowrick, M. Faulkner, N. Goren, and D. Holder, “A versatile and reproducible multi-frequency electrical impedance tomography system,” Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 17, no. 2, 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Comsol multiphysics,

    COMSOL AB, “Comsol multiphysics,” 2022. [Online]. Available: www.comsol.com

    2022

  48. [56]

    Report of the committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography. 1957,

    H. Jasper, “Report of the committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography. 1957,” in Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 10. Elsevier, 5 1958, pp. 370–375

    1957

  49. [57]

    Some Novel Approaches in Modelling and Image Reconstruction for Multi-Frequency Electrical Impedance Tomography of the Human Brain,

    L. Horesh, “Some Novel Approaches in Modelling and Image Reconstruction for Multi-Frequency Electrical Impedance Tomography of the Human Brain,” Ph.D. dissertation, University College London, 2006

    2006

  50. [58]

    Spin-exchange relaxation-free magnetometry using elliptically polarized light,

    V . Shah and M. V . Romalis, “Spin-exchange relaxation-free magnetometry using elliptically polarized light,” Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular , and Optical Physics, vol. 80, 8 2009

    2009

  51. [59]

    An exhaustive criterion for estimating quality of images in electrical impedance tomography with application to clinical imaging,

    A. Javaherian, A. Movafeghi, R. Faghihi, and E. Yahaghi, “An exhaustive criterion for estimating quality of images in electrical impedance tomography with application to clinical imaging,” Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation , vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 773–785, ...

    2013 doi

  52. [2018]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.05.022

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.05.022

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.