Spatial MEG Laterality maps for language: Clinical applications in epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional imaging is increasingly being used to provide a noninvasive alternative to intracarotid sodium amobarbitol testing (i.e., the Wada test). Although magnetoencephalography (MEG) has shown significant potential in this regard, the resultant output is often reduced to a simplified estimate of laterality. Such estimates belie the richness of functional imaging data and consequently limit the potential value. We present a novel approach that utilizes MEG data to compute "complex laterality vectors" and consequently "laterality maps" for a given function. Language function was examined in healthy controls and in people with epilepsy. When compared with traditional laterality index (LI) approaches, the resultant maps provided critical information about the magnitude and spatial characteristics of lateralized function. Specifically, it was possible to more clearly define low LI scores resulting from strong bilateral activation, high LI scores resulting from weak unilateral activation, and most importantly, the spatial distribution of lateralized activation. We argue that the laterality concept is better presented with the inherent spatial sensitivity of activation maps, rather than being collapsed into a one-dimensional index.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".