[anodyne33]

Isn't that a bit apples v oranges? I've had a MEG and I'm floored by the technology but would a better analog be a PET? We're looking for two different things, metabolism v saturation but it seems like they're both in the physical or structural realm than the electrical.

[cknizek]

One of the main advantages of TD-NIRS is that the signal it's imaging is "electrical".

Modalities like PET, BOLD fMRI, and CW-NIRS do depend upon saturation changes. For BOLD and CW-NIRS, it's the change in blood oxygen saturation.

TD-NIRS images the fast optical signal that is correlated with electrical activity in the cortex. MEG images the magnetic fields correlated with electrical activity in the cortex. IMO, they're pretty similar.

[anonymouse008]

> TD-NIRS images the fast optical signal that is correlated with electrical activity in the cortex. MEG images the magnetic fields correlated with electrical activity in the cortex. IMO, they're pretty similar.

So I guess the way I look at it, is that the field is what is augmented in a MEG, that makes the substrate emit an amplified signal naturally there. While a TD-NIRS injects a laser signal into the skull to measure back reflections... both inject energy into the system, but one is a reflection vs. an emission.

Is this the wrong way to look at it?

And anodyne33, yes, it is 100% apples to oranges. I was abreast of their original aims and MEG was on the table at the time - I had hoped that would remain the aim as it to me appears more beneficial, based on how I view the sensing above.