4.7 Article

Good practice for conducting and reporting MEG research

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 349-363

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.001

关键词

Magnetoencephalography; MEG; Acquisition; Analysis; Connectivity; Source localization; Guidelines; Recommendations; Reproducible research; Spectral analysis

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [091928, 098433, 091593/Z/10/Z]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [B/I006494/1]
  3. UK Medical Research Council [MC_US_A060_0046]
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_U105579226] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [MC_U105579226] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetoencephalographic (MEG) recordings are a rich source of information about the neural dynamics underlying cognitive processes in the brain, with excellent temporal and good spatial resolution. In recent years there have been considerable advances in MEG hardware developments and methods. Sophisticated analysis techniques are now routinely applied and continuously improved, leading to fascinating insights into the intricate dynamics of neural processes. However, the rapidly increasing level of complexity of the different steps in a MEG study make it difficult for novices, and sometimes even for experts, to stay aware of possible limitations and caveats. Furthermore, the complexity of MEG data acquisition and data analysis requires special attention when describing MEG studies in publications, in order to facilitate interpretation and reproduction of the results. This manuscript aims at making recommendations for a number of important data acquisition and data analysis steps and suggests details that should be specified in manuscripts reporting MEG studies. These recommendations will hopefully serve as guidelines that help to strengthen the position of the MEG research community within the field of neuroscience, and may foster discussion in order to further enhance the quality and impact of MEG research. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据