Low-resolution electrical tomography of the brain during psychometrically matched verbal and spatial cognitive tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EEGs were recorded from 75 normal, young, female subjects during psychometrically matched verbal (WF) and spatial (DL) cognitive tasks to elicit the differences in the electrical source distribution inside the brain. Recordings were obtained using 43 EEG and 3 guard electrodes then visually edited and spatially filtered to remove extracerebral artifacts. Twenty 1-sec artifact-free epochs were obtained and analyzed from 42 and 60 subjects during WF and DL respectively. Of these subjects, 20 were placed in a training set and the remainder into a test set. The baseline for the comparison of the two tasks was established by factoring the average cross-spectral matrices of the training-set EEGs, computed in the theta, alpha, and beta frequency bands into spatial patterns common to the two tasks. Only those spatial patterns that contributed to the correct classification of subjects in the test set were included in the source analysis. The source-current density distributions were obtained using the LORETA-KEY algorithm. The results show that the source-current density distribution is related to the putative functional activity in the brain in all three frequency bands. The electrical effects of the tasks are both most highly localized and lateralized in the theta band. The effects in the alpha and beta bands are much more generalized and are strongly lateralized only during one and the other of the tasks respectively. The conclusion is that WF is mainly a left central and bilateral frontal cerebral process while DL is mainly a right central and bilateral posterior cerebral process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".