MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050295850 · doi:10.1080/87565640701228732

Electrophysiological Evaluation of Human Brain Development

2007· review· en· W2050295850 on OpenAlexafffund
Terence W. Picton, Margot J. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neuropsychology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation Pour l'AuditionU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPsychologyNeuroscienceSynaptic pruningStimulus (psychology)Human brainEvent-related potentialElectrophysiologyElectroencephalographyPerceptionSensory systemCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complex development of the human brain during infancy can only be understood by convergent structural, functional, and behavioral measurements. The evaluation of event-related potentials (ERPs) is the most effective current way to look at infant brain function. ERP paradigms can be used to examine the simple transmission of sensory information to the cortex and the discrimination of this information within the cortex. The main developmental changes involve localization of function as the brain becomes tuned to the experienced world (related to synaptic pruning) and a speeding up of transmission as pathways become efficient (related to myelination). ERPs that occur in relation to different temporal aspects of a stimulus (onset-responses, offset-responses, sustained potentials and steady-state responses) and ERPs recorded at different stimulus rates may help track perceptual development from a temporal perspective. Particularly important in human development are the ERP changes that occur in the processing of speech sounds and human faces. At present, ERP studies can show differences between groups of subjects that can demonstrate developmental disorders or elucidate mechanisms of development. However, because of their variability, ERPs are less helpful in determining whether an individual infant is developing abnormally. Where possible, ERP measurements should be used in conjunction with behavioral tests so as to relate performance to mechanism, and with anatomical brain measurements to relate mechanism to structure.

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)0.001
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations113
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeuropsychologySame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207