| Title |
MEG-BIDS, the brain imaging data structure extended to magnetoencephalography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Data, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/sdata.2018.110 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guiomar Niso, Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski, Elizabeth Bock, Teon L. Brooks, Guillaume Flandin, Alexandre Gramfort, Richard N. Henson, Mainak Jas, Vladimir Litvak, Jeremy T. Moreau, Robert Oostenveld, Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen, Francois Tadel, Joseph Wexler, Sylvain Baillet |
| Abstract |
We present a significant extension of the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) to support the specific aspects of magnetoencephalography (MEG) data. MEG measures brain activity with millisecond temporal resolution and unique source imaging capabilities. So far, BIDS was a solution to organise magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. The nature and acquisition parameters of MRI and MEG data are strongly dissimilar. Although there is no standard data format for MEG, we propose MEG-BIDS as a principled solution to store, organise, process and share the multidimensional data volumes produced by the modality. The standard also includes well-defined metadata, to facilitate future data harmonisation and sharing efforts. This responds to unmet needs from the multimodal neuroimaging community and paves the way to further integration of other techniques in electrophysiology. MEG-BIDS builds on MRI-BIDS, extending BIDS to a multimodal data structure. We feature several data-analytics software that have adopted MEG-BIDS, and a diverse sample of open MEG-BIDS data resources available to everyone. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 144 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 32 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 12 | 8% |
| France | 11 | 8% |
| Canada | 10 | 7% |
| Australia | 4 | 3% |
| Sweden | 4 | 3% |
| Denmark | 4 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 2% |
| Spain | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 46 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 77 | 53% |
| Scientists | 60 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 161 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 40 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 17% |
| Unknown | 30 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 53 | 33% |
| Psychology | 16 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 8% |
| Engineering | 11 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Unknown | 45 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2022.
All research outputs
#485,315
of 25,930,295 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Data
#165
of 3,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,332
of 343,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Data
#1
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,930,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,321 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.