Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Contact heat is commonly used in experimental research to evoke brain activity, most frequently acquired with electroencephalography (EEG). Although magnetoencephalography (MEG) improves spatial resolution, using some contact heat stimulators with MEG can present methodological challenges. This systematic review assesses studies that utilise contact heat in MEG, their findings and possible directions for further research.
METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched for relevant studies, in addition to the selected papers\' reference lists, citations and ConnectedPapers maps. Best practice recommendations for systematic reviews were followed. Papers met inclusion criteria if they used MEG to record brain activity in conjunction with contact heat, regardless of stimulator equipment or paradigm.
RESULTS: Of 646 search results, seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies demonstrated effective electromagnetic artefact removal from MEG data, the ability to elicit affective anticipation and differences in deep brain stimulation responders. We identify contact heat stimulus parameters that should be reported in publications to ensure comparisons between data outcomes are consistent.
CONCLUSIONS: Contact heat is a viable alternative to laser or electrical stimulation in experimental research, and methods exist to successfully mitigate any electromagnetic noise generated by PATHWAY CHEPS equipment - though there is a dearth of literature exploring the post-stimulus time window.
METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched for relevant studies, in addition to the selected papers\' reference lists, citations and ConnectedPapers maps. Best practice recommendations for systematic reviews were followed. Papers met inclusion criteria if they used MEG to record brain activity in conjunction with contact heat, regardless of stimulator equipment or paradigm.
RESULTS: Of 646 search results, seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies demonstrated effective electromagnetic artefact removal from MEG data, the ability to elicit affective anticipation and differences in deep brain stimulation responders. We identify contact heat stimulus parameters that should be reported in publications to ensure comparisons between data outcomes are consistent.
CONCLUSIONS: Contact heat is a viable alternative to laser or electrical stimulation in experimental research, and methods exist to successfully mitigate any electromagnetic noise generated by PATHWAY CHEPS equipment - though there is a dearth of literature exploring the post-stimulus time window.
摘要：
背景：接触热通常用于实验研究，以唤起大脑活动，最常见的是脑电图（EEG）。尽管脑磁图（MEG）提高了空间分辨率，使用一些接触热刺激器与MEG可以提出方法上的挑战。本系统综述评估了在MEG中利用接触热的研究，他们的发现和进一步研究的可能方向。
方法：检索了8个电子数据库进行相关研究，除了选定的论文参考列表，引文和ConnectedPapers地图。遵循了系统审查的最佳做法建议。如果论文使用MEG记录大脑活动并结合接触热量，则符合纳入标准，无论刺激器设备或范例如何。
结果：在646个搜索结果中，7项研究符合纳入标准.研究表明，可以有效地从MEG数据中去除电磁伪影，引起情感预期的能力和深部脑刺激反应者的差异。我们确定了应在出版物中报告的接触热刺激参数，以确保数据结果之间的比较一致。
结论：在实验研究中，接触加热是激光或电刺激的可行替代方法，尽管缺乏探索刺激后时间窗口的文献，但存在成功减轻PATHWAYCHEPS设备产生的任何电磁噪声的方法。
方法：检索了8个电子数据库进行相关研究，除了选定的论文参考列表，引文和ConnectedPapers地图。遵循了系统审查的最佳做法建议。如果论文使用MEG记录大脑活动并结合接触热量，则符合纳入标准，无论刺激器设备或范例如何。
结果：在646个搜索结果中，7项研究符合纳入标准.研究表明，可以有效地从MEG数据中去除电磁伪影，引起情感预期的能力和深部脑刺激反应者的差异。我们确定了应在出版物中报告的接触热刺激参数，以确保数据结果之间的比较一致。
结论：在实验研究中，接触加热是激光或电刺激的可行替代方法，尽管缺乏探索刺激后时间窗口的文献，但存在成功减轻PATHWAYCHEPS设备产生的任何电磁噪声的方法。
