MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053352807 · doi:10.1002/hbm.20685

Random fields—Union intersection tests for detecting functional connectivity in EEG/MEG imaging

2009· article· en· W2053352807 on OpenAlexaff
Félix Carbonell, Keith J. Worsley, Nelson J. Trujillo‐Barreto, Roberto C. Sotero

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
FundersMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsComputer scienceElectroencephalographyStatistical hypothesis testingArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)MagnetoencephalographyStatisticStatistical parametric mappingTest statisticIntersection (aeronautics)Parametric statisticsMultivariate statisticsMachine learningStatisticsMathematicsPsychologyCartographyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrophysiological (EEG/MEG) imaging challenges statistics by providing two views of the same underlying spatio-temporal brain activity: a topographic view (EEG/MEG) and tomographic view (EEG/MEG source reconstructions). It is a common practice that statistical parametric mapping (SPM) for these two situations is developed separately. In particular, assessing statistical significance of functional connectivity is a major challenge in these types of studies. This work introduces statistical tests for assessing simultaneously the significance of spatio-temporal correlation structure between ERP/ERF components as well as that of their generating sources. We introduce a greatest root statistic as the multivariate test statistic for detecting functional connectivity between two sets of EEG/MEG measurements at a given time instant. We use some new results in random field theory to solve the multiple comparisons problem resulting from the correlated test statistics at each time instant. In general, our approach using the union-intersection (UI) principle provides a framework for hypothesis testing about any linear combination of sensor data, which allows the analysis of the correlation structure of both topographic and tomographic views. The performance of the proposed method is illustrated with real ERP data obtained from a face recognition experiment.

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)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207