The neurodevelopmental trajectory of beta band oscillations: an OPM-MEG study

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
Compared with conventional SQUID-MEG, OPM-MEG offers theoretical advantages of sensor configurability (that is, sizing to suit the head size) and motion tolerance (the sensors are intrinsically in the head reference frame). This study purports to be the first to experimentally demonstrate these advantages in a developmental study from age 2 to age 34.

In short, while the theoretical advantages of OPM-MEG are attractive - both in terms of young child sensitivity and in terms of motion tolerance - neither was in fact demonstrated in this manuscript. We are left with a replication of SQUID-MEG observations, which certainly establishes OPM-MEG as "substantially equivalent" to conventional technology but misses the opportunity to empirically demonstrate the much-discussed theoretical advantages/opportunities.

Strengths:
A replication of SQUID-MEG observations, which certainly establishes OPM-MEG as "substantially equivalent" to conventional technology but misses the opportunity to empirically demonstrate the much-discussed theoretical advantages/opportunities.

Weaknesses:
The authors describe 64 tri-axial detectors, which they refer to as 192 channels. This is in keeping with some of the SQUID-MEG description, but possibly somewhat disingenuous. For the scientific literature, perhaps "64 tri-axial detectors" is a more parsimonious description.

A small fraction (<20%) of trials were eliminated for analysis because of "excess interference" - this warrants further elaboration.

Figure 3 shows a reduced beta ERD in the youngest children. Although the authors claim that OPM-MEG would be similarly sensitive for all ages and that SQUID-MEG would be relatively insensitive to young children, one trivial counterargument that needs to be addressed is that OPM has NOT in fact increased the sensitivity to young child ERD. This can possibly be addressed by analogous experiments using a SQUID-based system. An alternative would be to demonstrate similar sensitivity across ages using OPM to a brain measure such as evoked response amplitude. In short, how does Figure 3 demonstrate the (theoretical) sensitivity advantage of OPM MEG in small heads ?

The data do not make a compelling case for the motion tolerance of OPM-MEG. Although an apparent advantage of a wearable system, an empirical demonstration is still lacking. How was motion tracked in these participants?

Furthermore, while the introduction discusses at some length the phenomenon of PMBR, there is no demonstration of the recording of PMBR (or post-sensory beta rebound). This is a shame because there is literature suggesting an age-sensitivity to this, that the optimal sensitivity of OPM-MEG might confirm/refute. There is little evidence in Figure 3 for adult beta rebound. Is there an explanation for the lack of sensitivity to this phenomenon in children/adolescents ? Could a more robust paradigm (button-press) have shed light on this?

Data on functional connectivity are valuable but do not rely on OPM recording. They further do not add strength to the argument that OPM MEG is more sensitive to brain activity in smaller heads - in fact, the OPM recordings seem plagued by the same insensitivity observed using conventional systems.

The discussion of burst vs oscillations, while highly relevant in the field, is somewhat independent of the OPM recording approach and does not add weight to the OPM claims.

In short, while the theoretical advantages of OPM-MEG are attractive - both in terms of young child sensitivity and in terms of motion tolerance, neither was in fact demonstrated in this manuscript. We are left with a replication of SQUID-MEG observations, which certainly establishes OPM-MEG as "substantially equivalent" to conventional technology but misses the opportunity to empirically demonstrate the much-discussed theoretical advantages/opportunities.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
The authors introduce a new 192-channel OPM system that can be configured using different helmets to fit individuals from 2 to 34 years old. To demonstrate the veracity of the system, they conduct a sensorimotor task aimed at mapping developmental changes in beta oscillations across this age range. Many past studies have mapped the trajectory of beta (and gamma) oscillations in the sensorimotor cortices, but these studies have focused on older children and adolescents (e.g., 9-15 years old) and used motor tasks. Thus, given the study goals, the choice of a somatosensory task was surprising and not justified. The authors recorded a final sample of 27 children (2-13 years old) and 24 adults (21-34 years) and performed a time-frequency analysis to identify oscillatory activity. This revealed strong beta oscillations (decreases from baseline) following the somatosensory stimulation, which the authors imaged to discern generators in the sensorimotor cortices. They then computed the power difference between 0.3-0.8 period and 1.0-1.5 s post-stimulation period and showed that the beta response became stronger with age (more negative relative to the stimulation period). Using these same time windows, they computed the beta burst probability and showed that this probability increased as a function of age. They also showed that the spectral composition of the bursts varied with age. Finally, they conducted a whole-brain connectivity analysis. The goals of the connectivity analysis were not as clear as prior studies of sensorimotor development have not conducted such analyses and typically such whole-brain connectivity analyses are performed on resting-state data, whereas here the authors performed the analysis on task-based data. In sum, the authors demonstrate that they can image beta oscillations in young children using OPM and discern developmental effects.

Strengths:
Major strengths of the study include the novel OPM system and the unique participant population going down to 2-year-olds. The analyses are also innovative in many respects.

Weaknesses:
Several weaknesses currently limit the impact of the study. First, the choice of a somatosensory stimulation task over a motor task was not justified. The authors discuss the developmental motor literature throughout the introduction, but then present data from a somatosensory task, which is confusing. Of note, there is considerable literature on the development of somatosensory responses so the study could be framed with that. Second, the primary somatosensory response actually occurs well before the time window of interest in all of the key analyses. There is an established literature showing mechanical stimulation activates the somatosensory cortex within the first 100 ms following stimulation, with the M50 being the most robust response. The authors focus on a beta decrease (desynchronization) from 0.3-0.8 s which is obviously much later, despite the primary somatosensory response being clear in some of their spectrograms (e.g., Figure 3 in older children and adults). This response appears to exhibit a robust developmental effect in these spectrograms so it is unclear why the authors did not examine it. This raises a second point; to my knowledge, the beta decrease following stimulation has not been widely studied and its function is unknown. The maps in Figure 3 suggest that the response is anterior to the somatosensory cortex and perhaps even anterior to the motor cortex. Since the goal of the study is to demonstrate the developmental trajectory of well-known neural responses using an OPM system, should the authors not focus on the best-understood responses (i.e., the primary somatosensory response that occurs from 0.0-0.3 s)?

Regarding the developmental effects, the authors appear to compute a modulation index that contrasts the peak beta window (.3 to .8) to a later 1.0-1.5 s window where a rebound is present in older adults. This is problematic for several reasons. First, it prevents the origin of the developmental effect from being discerned, as a difference in the beta decrease following stimulation is confounded with the beta rebound that occurs later. A developmental effect in either of these responses could be driving the effect. From Figure 3, it visually appears that the much later rebound response is driving the developmental effect and not the beta decrease that is the primary focus of the study. Second, these time windows are a concern because a different time window was used to derive the peak voxel used in these analyses. From the methods, it appears the image was derived using the .3-.8 window versus a baseline of 2.5-3.0 s. How do the authors know that the peak would be the same in this other time window (0.3-0.8 vs. 1.0-1.5)? Given the confound mentioned above, I would recommend that the authors contrast each of their windows (0.3-0.8 and 1.0-1.5) with the 2.5-3.0 window to compute independent modulation indices. This would enable them to identify which of the two windows (beta decrease from 0.3-0.8 s or the increase from 1.0-1.5 s) exhibited a developmental effect. Also, for clarity, the authors should write out the equation that they used to compute the modulation index. The direction of the difference (positive vs. negative) is not always clear.

Another complication of using a somatosensory task is that the literature on bursting is much more limited and it is unclear what the expectations would be. Overall, the burst probability appears to be relatively flat across the trial, except that there is a sharp decrease during the beta decrease (.3-.8 s). This matches the conventional trial-averaging analysis, which is good to see. However, how the bursting observed here relates to the motor literature and the PMBR versus beta ERD is unclear.

Another weakness is that all participants completed 42 trials, but 19% of the trials were excluded in children and 9% were excluded in adults. The number of trials is proportional to the signal-to-noise ratio. Thus, the developmental differences observed in response amplitude could reflect differences in the number of trials that went into the final analyses.

Finally, the discussion could be improved to focus on the somatosensory literature and how this contributes to that. Currently, the discussion includes very little from the somatosensory literature.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study demonstrated the application of OPM-MEG in neurodevelopment studies of somatosensory beta oscillations and connections with children as young as 2 years old. It provides a new functional neuroimaging method that has a high spatial-temporal resolution as well wearable which makes it a new useful tool for studies in young children. They have constructed a 192-channel wearable OPM-MEG system that includes field compensation coils which allow free head movement scanning with a relatively high ratio of usable trials. Beta band oscillations during somatosensory tasks are well localized and the modulation with age is found in the amplitude, connectivity, and pan-spectral burst probability. It is demonstrated that the wearable OPM-MEG could be used in children as a quite practical and easy-to-deploy neuroimaging method with performance as good as conventional MEG. With both good spatial (several millimeters) and temporal (milliseconds) resolution, it provides a novel and powerful technology for neurodevelopment research and clinical applications not limited to somatosensory areas.

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by data acquired under the proper method. However, some aspects of data analysis need to be improved and extended.

(1) The colour bars selected for the pseudo-T-static pictures of beta modulation in Figures 2 and 3, which are blue/black and red/black, are not easily distinguished from the anatomical images which are grey-scale. A colour bar without black/white would make these figures better. The peak point locations are also suggested to be marked in Figure 2 and averaged locations in Figure 3 with an error bar.

(2) The data points in plots are not constant across figures. In Figures 3 and 5, they are classified into triangles and circles for children and adults, but all are circles in Figures 4 and 6.

(3) Although MEG is much less susceptible to conductivity inhomogeneity of the head than EEG, the forward modulating may still be impacted by the small head profile. Add more information about source localization accuracy and stability across ages or head size.