MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alpha and Beta Band Event-Related Desynchronization Reflects Kinematic Regularities

2015· article· en· W2080402214 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yaron Meirovitch, Hila Harris, Eran Dayan, Amos Arieli, Tamar Flash

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFP7 Information and Communication TechnologiesAzrieli FoundationPlanning and Budgeting Committee of the Council for Higher Education of IsraelIsraeli Centers for Research ExcellenceEuropean Commission
KeywordsKinematicsNeuroscienceBiological motionMotion perceptionPhysicsMotion (physics)BETA (programming language)Alpha (finance)PsychologyPerceptionBeta RhythmAttenuationMovement (music)ElectroencephalographyCommunicationComputer scienceOpticsClassical mechanicsAcousticsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The short-lasting attenuation of brain oscillations is termed event-related desynchronization (ERD). It is frequently found in the alpha and beta bands in humans during generation, observation, and imagery of movement and is considered to reflect cortical motor activity and action-perception coupling. The shared information driving ERD in all these motor-related behaviors is unknown. We investigated whether particular laws governing production and perception of curved movement may account for the attenuation of alpha and beta rhythms. Human movement appears to be governed by relatively few kinematic laws of motion. One dominant law in biological motion kinematics is the 2/3 power law (PL), which imposes a strong dependency of movement speed on curvature and is prominent in action-perception coupling. Here we directly examined whether the 2/3 PL elicits ERD during motion observation by characterizing the spatiotemporal signature of ERD. ERDs were measured while human subjects observed a cloud of dots moving along elliptical trajectories either complying with or violating the 2/3 PL. We found that ERD within both frequency bands was consistently stronger, arose faster, and was more widespread while observing motion obeying the 2/3 PL. An activity pattern showing clear 2/3 PL preference and lying within the alpha band was observed exclusively above central motor areas, whereas 2/3 PL preference in the beta band was observed in additional prefrontal-central cortical sites. Our findings reveal that compliance with the 2/3 PL is sufficient to elicit a selective ERD response in the human brain.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations94
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207