ACR White Paper on Magnetoencephalography and Magnetic Source Imaging: A Report from the ACR Commission on Neuroradiology

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Burgess RC

   . MEG for greater sensitivity and more precise localization in epilepsy. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2020;30:145–58 doi:10.1016/j.nic.2020.02.004 pmid:32336403

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Bagić AI,
   2. Burgess RC

   . Utilization of MEG among the US epilepsy centers: a survey-based appraisal. J Clin Neurophysiol 2020;37:599–605 doi:10.1097/WNP.0000000000000716 pmid:33165233

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Jung J,
   2. Bouet R,
   3. Delpuech C, et al

   . The value of magnetoencephalography for seizure-onset zone localization in magnetic resonance imaging-negative partial epilepsy. Brain 2013;136:3176–86 doi:10.1093/brain/awt213 pmid:24014520

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. De Tiège X,
   2. Carrette E,
   3. Legros B, et al

   . Clinical added value of magnetic source imaging in the presurgical evaluation of refractory focal epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012;83:417–23 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2011-301166 pmid:22262910

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Mohamed IS,
   2. Toffa DH,
   3. Robert M, et al

   . Utility of magnetic source imaging in nonlesional focal epilepsy: a prospective study. Neurosurg Focus 2020;48:E16 doi:10.3171/2020.1.FOCUS19877 pmid:32234989

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Englot DJ,
   2. Nagarajan SS,
   3. Imber BS, et al

   . Epileptogenic zone localization using magnetoencephalography predicts seizure freedom in epilepsy surgery. Epilepsia 2015;56:949–58 doi:10.1111/epi.13002 pmid:25921215

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Knowlton RC

   . The role of FDG-PET, ictal SPECT, and MEG in the epilepsy surgery evaluation. Epilepsy Behav 2006;8:91–101 doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2005.10.015 pmid:16406729

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Supek S,
   2. Aine CJ

   . Magnetoencephalography: From Signals to Dynamic Cortical Networks. Springer; 2019
9. 9.↵
   1. Murakami H,
   2. Wang ZI,
   3. Marashly A, et al

   . Correlating magnetoencephalography to stereo-electroencephalography in patients undergoing epilepsy surgery. Brain 2016;139:2935–47 doi:10.1093/brain/aww215 pmid:27567464

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Bowyer SM,
    2. Pang EW,
    3. Huang M, et al

    . Presurgical functional mapping with magnetoencephalography. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2020;30:159–74 doi:10.1016/j.nic.2020.02.005 pmid:32336404

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Stufflebeam SM

    . Clinical magnetoencephalography for neurosurgery. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2011;22:153–67 doi:10.1016/j.nec.2010.11.006 pmid:21435568

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Grummich P,
    2. Nimsky C,
    3. Pauli E, et al

    . Combining fMRI and MEG increases the reliability of presurgical language localization: a clinical study on the difference between and congruence of both modalities. Neuroimage 2006;32:1793–1803 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.05.034 pmid:16889984

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Hari R,
    2. Baillet S,
    3. Barnes G, et al

    . IFCN-endorsed practical guidelines for clinical magnetoencephalography (MEG). Clin Neurophysiol 2018;129:1720–47 doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2018.03.042 pmid:29724661

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Zillgitt A,
    2. Barkley GL,
    3. Bowyer SM

    . Visual mapping with magnetoencephalography: an update on the current state of clinical research and practice with considerations for clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Neurophysiol 2020;37:585–91 doi:10.1097/WNP.0000000000000483 pmid:33165231

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Kreidenhuber R,
    2. De Tiège X,
    3. Rampp S

    . Presurgical functional cortical mapping using electromagnetic source imaging. Front Neurol 2019;10:628 doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.00628 pmid:31249552

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Hirata M,
    2. Kato A,
    3. Taniguchi M, et al

    . Determination of language dominance with synthetic aperture magnetometry: comparison with the Wada test. Neuroimage 2004;23:46–53 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.05.009 pmid:15325351

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Hirata M,
    2. Goto T,
    3. Barnes G, et al

    . Language dominance and mapping based on neuromagnetic oscillatory changes: comparison with invasive procedures. J Neurosurg 2010;112:528–38 doi:10.3171/2009.7.JNS09239 pmid:19681682

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Findlay AM,
    2. Ambrose JB,
    3. Cahn-Weiner DA, et al

    . Dynamics of hemispheric dominance for language assessed by magnetoencephalographic imaging. Ann Neurol 2012;71:668–86 doi:10.1002/ana.23530 pmid:22522481

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Gofshteyn JS,
    2. Le T,
    3. Kessler S, et al

    . Synthetic aperture magnetometry and excess kurtosis mapping of magnetoencephalography (MEG) is predictive of epilepsy surgical outcome in a large pediatric cohort. Epilepsy Res 2019;155:106151 doi:10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2019.106151 pmid:31247475

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Hillebrand A,
    2. Barnes GR

    . Beamformer analysis of MEG data. Int Rev Neurobiol 2005;68:149–71 doi:10.1016/S0074-7742(05)68006-3 pmid:16443013

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. King MA,
    2. Newton MR,
    3. Jackson GD, et al

    . Epileptology of the first-seizure presentation: a clinical, electroencephalographic, and magnetic resonance imaging study of 300 consecutive patients. Lancet 1998;352:1007–11 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)03543-0 pmid:9759742

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Sarvas J

    . Basic mathematical and electromagnetic concepts of the biomagnetic inverse problem. Phys Med Biol 1987;32:11–22 doi:10.1088/0031-9155/32/1/004 pmid:3823129

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. Levin KH,
    2. Chauvel KH

    1. Burgess RC

    . In: Levin KH, Chauvel KH, eds. Handbook of Clinical Neurology; Clinical Neurophysiology: Basis and Technical Aspects. Vol 160, Chapter 13. Elsevier; 2019:203–14

    CrossRef
24. 24.↵
    1. Burgess RC,
    2. Funke ME,
    3. Bowyer SM, et al

    ; ACMEGS Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) Committee. American Clinical Magnetoence-phalography Society Clinical Practice Guideline 2: presurgical functional brain mapping using magnetic evoked fields. J Clin Neurophysiol 2011;28:355–56 doi:10.1097/WNP.0b013e3182272ffe pmid:21811122

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Bagic AI,
    2. Knowlton RC,
    3. Rose DF

    , et al. ACMEGS Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) Committee. American Clinical Magnetoencephalography Society clinical practice guideline 1: recording and analysis of spontaneous cerebral activity. J Clin Neurophysiol 2011;28:348–54 doi:10.1097/WNP.0b013e3182272fed pmid:21811121

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Huang MX,
    2. Nichols S,
    3. Baker DG, et al

    . Single-subject-based whole-brain MEG slow-wave imaging approach for detecting abnormality in patients with mild traumatic brain injury. Neuroimage Clin 2014;5:109–19 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2014.06.004 pmid:25009772

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Huang MX,
    2. Nichols S,
    3. Robb A, et al

    . An automatic MEG low-frequency source imaging approach for detecting injuries in mild and moderate TBI patients with blast and non-blast causes. Neuroimage 2012;61:1067–82 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.029 pmid:22542638

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Huang MX,
    2. Theilmann RJ,
    3. Robb A, et al

    . Integrated imaging approach with MEG and DTI to detect mild traumatic brain injury in military and civilian patients. J Neurotrauma 2009;26:1213–26 doi:10.1089/neu.2008.0672 pmid:19385722

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    1. Huang MX,
    2. Huang CW,
    3. Harrington DL, et al

    . Marked increases in resting-state MEG gamma-band activity in combat-related mild traumatic brain injury. Cereb Cortex 2020;30:283–95 doi:10.1093/cercor/bhz087 pmid:31041986

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Lewine JD,
    2. Davis JT,
    3. Bigler ED, et al

    . Objective documentation of traumatic brain injury subsequent to mild head trauma: multimodal brain imaging with MEG, SPECT, and MRI. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2007;22:141–55 doi:10.1097/01.HTR.0000271115.29954.27 pmid:17510590

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    1. Gloor P,
    2. Ball G,
    3. Schaul N

    . Brain lesions that produce delta waves in the EEG. Neurology 1977;27:326–33 doi:10.1212/WNL.27.4.326 pmid:557774

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
32. 32.↵
    1. Huang MX,
    2. Harrington DL,
    3. Robb Swan A, et al

    . Resting-state magnetoencephalography reveals different patterns of aberrant functional connectivity in combat-related mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2017;34:1412–26 doi:10.1089/neu.2016.4581 pmid:27762653

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Tarapore PE,
    2. Findlay AM,
    3. Lahue SC, et al

    . Resting state magnetoencephalography functional connectivity in traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg 2013;118:1306–16 doi:10.3171/2013.3.JNS12398 pmid:23600939

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Ball GJ,
    2. Gloor P,
    3. Schaul N

    . The cortical electromicrophysiology of pathological delta waves in the electroencephalogram of cats. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1977;43:346–61 doi:10.1016/0013-4694(77)90258-9 pmid:70336

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    1. Huang M,
    2. Risling M,
    3. Baker DG

    . The role of biomarkers and MEG-based imaging markers in the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and blast-induced mild traumatic brain injury. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2016;63:398–409 doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.02.008 pmid:25769625

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Roberts TPL,
    2. Khan SY,
    3. Rey M, et al

    . MEG detection of delayed auditory evoked responses in autism spectrum disorders: towards an imaging biomarker for autism. Autism Res 2010;3:8–18 doi:10.1002/aur.111 pmid:20063319

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. 37.↵
    1. Roberts TP,
    2. Cannon KM,
    3. Tavabi K, et al

    . Auditory magnetic mismatch field latency: a biomarker for language impairment in autism. Biol Psychiatry 2011;70:263–69 doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.01.015 pmid:21392733

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
38. 38.↵
    1. Matsuzaki J,
    2. Kuschner ES,
    3. Blaskey L, et al

    . Abnormal auditory mismatch fields are associated with communication impairment in both verbal and minimally verbal/nonverbal children who have autism spectrum disorder. Autism Res 2019;12:1225–35 doi:10.1002/aur.2136 pmid:31136103

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. López-Sanz D,
    2. Serrano N,
    3. Maestú F

    . The role of magnetoencephalography in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Front Neurosci 2018;12:572 doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00572 pmid:30158852

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Nakamura A,
    2. Cuesta P,
    3. Fernández A, et al

    . Electromagnetic signatures of the preclinical and prodromal stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 2018;141:1470–85 doi:10.1093/brain/awy044 pmid:29522156

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Pusil S,
    2. López ME,
    3. Cuesta P, et al

    . Hypersynchronization in mild cognitive impairment: the 'X' model. Brain 2019;142:3936–50 doi:10.1093/brain/awz320 pmid:31633176

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Canuet L,
    2. Pusil S,
    3. López ME, et al

    . Network disruption and cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-beta and phospho-tau levels in mild cognitive impairment. J Neurosci 2015;35:10325–30 doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0704-15.2015 pmid:26180207

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
43. 43.↵
    1. Ranasinghe KG,
    2. Cha J,
    3. Iaccarino L, et al

    . Neurophysiological signatures in Alzheimer’s disease are distinctly associated with TAU, amyloid-beta accumulation, and cognitive decline. Sci Transl Med 2020;12:eaaz4069 doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz4069 pmid:32161102

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
44. 44.↵
    1. Ranasinghe KG,
    2. Hinkley LB,
    3. Beagle AJ, et al

    . Regional functional connectivity predicts distinct cognitive impairments in Alzheimer’s disease spectrum. Neuroimage Clin 2014;5:385–95 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2014.07.006 pmid:25180158

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    1. Sami S,
    2. Williams N,
    3. Hughes LE, et al

    . Neurophysiological signatures of Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration: pathology versus phenotype. Brain 2018;141:2500–10 doi:10.1093/brain/awy180 pmid:30060017

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Cuesta P,
    2. Barabash A,
    3. Aurtenetxe S, et al

    . Source analysis of spontaneous magnetoencephalograpic activity in healthy aging and mild cognitive impairment: influence of apolipoprotein E polymorphism. J Alzheimers Dis 2015;43:259–73 doi:10.3233/JAD-140633 pmid:25079806

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    1. Ranasinghe KG,
    2. Hinkley LB,
    3. Beagle AJ, et al

    . Distinct spatiotemporal patterns of neuronal functional connectivity in primary progressive aphasia variants. Brain 2017;140:2737–51 doi:10.1093/brain/awx217 pmid:28969381

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    1. Engels MM,
    2. Yu M,
    3. Stam CJ, et al

    . Directional information flow in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. a source-space resting-state MEG study. Neuroimage Clin 2017;15:673–81 doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2017.06.025 pmid:28702344

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    1. Kocagoncu E,
    2. Quinn A,
    3. Firouzian A, et al

    ; Deep and Frequent Phenotyping Study Team. Tau pathology in early Alzheimer’s disease is linked to selective disruptions in neurophysiological network dynamics. Neurobiol Aging 2020;92:141–52 doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2020.03.009 pmid:32280029

    CrossRefPubMed