Comparison of beamformer implementations for MEG source localization
Amit Kumar JaiswaliD, Jukka NenoneniD, Matti StenroosiD, Alexandre GramfortiD, Sarang S. DalaliD, Britta U. WestneriD, Vladimir Litvak AiD, John C. MosheriD, Jan‐Mathijs SchoffeleniD, Caroline WittoniD, Robert OostenveldiD, Lauri T. ParkkoneniD
Abstract
Beamformers are applied for estimating spatiotemporal characteristics of neuronal sources underlying measured MEG/EEG signals. Several MEG analysis toolboxes include an implementation of a linearly constrained minimum-variance (LCMV) beamformer. However, differences in implementations and in their results complicate the selection and application of beamformers and may hinder their wider adoption in research and clinical use. Additionally, combinations of different MEG sensor types (such as magnetometers and planar gradiometers) and application of preprocessing methods for interference suppression, such as signal space separation (SSS), can affect the results in different ways for different implementations. So far, a systematic evaluation of the different implementations has not been performed. Here, we compared the localization performance of the LCMV beamformer pipelines in four widely used open-source toolboxes (FieldTrip, SPM12, Brainstorm, and MNE-Python) using datasets both with and without SSS interference suppression.\n\nWe analyzed MEG data that were i) simulated, ii) recorded from a static and moving phantom, and iii) recorded from a healthy volunteer receiving auditory, visual, and somatosensory stimulation. We also investigated the effects of SSS and the combination of the magnetometer and gradiometer signals. We quantified how localization error and point-spread volume vary with SNR in all four toolboxes.\n\nWhen applied carefully to MEG data with a typical SNR (3-15 dB), all four toolboxes localized the sources reliably; however, they differed in their sensitivity to preprocessing parameters. As expected, localizations were highly unreliable at very low SNR, but we found high localization error also at very high SNRs. We also found that the SNR improvement offered by SSS led to more accurate localization.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 79
- FWCI
- 5.50
- Field percentile
- top 3%
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Subspace based Multiple Constrained Minimum Variance (SMCMV) Beamformers
Alexander Moiseev, Anthony T. Herdman, Urs Ribary·Biomedical Signal Processing and ControlPeer-reviewed·Sep 16, 2021
- Multi-Source Neural Activity Indices for EEG/MEG Localization: A Two-Stage Spatial Filtering Framework and Extension to MNE-Python
Julia Jurkowska, Joanna Dreszer, … Tomasz Piotrowski·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Jul 26, 2026
- Towards an Objective Evaluation of EEG/MEG Source Estimation Methods: The Linear Tool Kit
Olaf Hauk, Matti Stenroos, Matthias Sebastian Treder·bioRxiv·Jun 18, 2019
- Comparing EEG/MEG neuroimaging methods based on localization error, false positive activity, and false positive connectivity
Roberto Domingo Pascual-Marqui, Pascal Luc Faber, … Masafumi Yoshimura·bioRxiv·Feb 22, 2018
- Source reconstruction of broadband EEG/MEG data using the frequency-adaptive broadband (FAB) beamformer
Matthias Sebastian Treder, Guido Nolte·bioRxiv·Dec 20, 2018
- Improved Source Localization of Auditory Evoked Fields using Reciprocal BEM-FMM
Derek A. Drumm, Guillermo Nuñez Ponasso, … Zhi‐De Deng·Brain TopographyPeer-reviewed·Mar 31, 2026