MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990659761 · doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2013.05.023

Potential production of Hughlings Jackson's “parasitic consciousness” by physiologically-patterned weak transcerebral magnetic fields: QEEG and source localization

2013· review· en· W1990659761 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin S. Saroka, Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsy & Behavior · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsciousnessPsychologyEpilepsyNeuroscienceTemporal lobeElectroencephalographyMagnetoencephalographyLevel of consciousnessAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exotic experiences such as the sensing of another consciousness or the detachment of consciousness from the body are occasionally reported by individuals with partial seizures from a temporal lobe focus. The experiences display the characteristics of Hughlings Jackson's "parasitic consciousness". We have hypothesized that these experiences are encouraged by slight discrepancies in hemispheric activity that can be simulated by application of weak, physiologically-patterned magnetic fields across the cerebral hemispheres. Electroencephalographic and Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (sLORETA) data revealed altered activity bands within specific regions within the cerebral cortices during these experiences. The clear changes in power of brain activity were discerned after consistent durations of exposure to specifically patterned weak magnetic fields. Millisecond range point durations were required. The technology may be useful to explore the subjective components associated with complex partial seizures.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsy & BehaviorSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207