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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".