MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022115089 · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-8-s2-p56

Customization of coherence analysis by relaxing its iso-frequency constraint

2007· article· en· W2022115089 on OpenAlexaff
Pooya Pakarian, Arash Hadipour-Niktarash

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Thalamic reticular nucleusPhysicsSuperposition principleComputer scienceTrigonometric functionsOscillation (cell signaling)BurstingTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsNucleusNeuroscienceQuantum mechanicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coherence analysis is a tool to probe the functional connectivity of two neural oscillators through studying the two signals recorded from them. A sliding window cuts the two signals into a number of corresponding epochs. The power of any given frequency in the two signals can be expressed as a pair of multidimensional vectors. The number of dimensions is equal to the number of the epochs. Coherence of the two signals at that given frequency is calculated as the squared cosine of the angle between these two multidimensional vectors. This style of calculation of coherence is based on the presumption that the functional connectivity of the two oscillators would be demonstrated as simultaneous, linearly correlated wax and wane in the power of oscillation in identical frequencies; but many connected neural oscillators do not exhibit this behavior. An example is the circuitry of Globus Pallidus internus (GPi), thalamocortical relay nucleus (TC), and thalamic reticular nucleus (RE). In this circuit, a four Hz burst activity in GPi triggers an eight Hz burst in TC under the effect of RE. Therefore, GPi and TC are functionally connected but not in identical frequencies and this aspect of their connectivity can not be demonstrated by the conventional coherence analysis. The present study suggests a customized version of coherence in which the calculation of coherence can be extrapolated to the vectors representing powers of non identical frequencies in the two signals. This extrapolation has been tested on a model of GPi-TC-RE and a peak in the customized coherence between the vector of 4 Hz activity of GPi and the vector of 8 Hz activity of TC has been demonstrated.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NeuroscienceSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207