MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117940998 · doi:10.1109/isbi.2004.1398799

Better conditioning the MEG/EEG inverse problem: The multivariate source prelocalization approach

2005· article· en· W2117940998 on OpenAlexaff
Jérémie Mattout, Jean Daunizeau, Mélanie Pélégrini‐Issac, Line Garnero, Habib Benali

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitializationMultivariate statisticsComputer scienceInverse problemPreprocessorInverseMonte Carlo methodAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMagnetoencephalographyNorm (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsElectroencephalographyStatisticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recently proposed multivariate source prelocalization (MSP) proved efficient and robust for restricting the solution space of the highly under-determined MEG/EEG inverse problem through the estimation of a probability-like coefficient of activation for each cortical area. It makes MSP a good candidate for initializing conventional inverse methods in order to improve electromagnetic source reconstruction. In this paper, we evaluate the benefit of MSP as a preprocessing step for a classical iterative weighted minimum norm algorithm, the FOCUSS approach, whose results highly rely upon its initialization. By using Monte Carlo simulations, we demonstrate the usefulness of such a coupling. Moreover, we quantify the benefits due on the one hand, to the reduction of the solution space and, on the other hand, to the explicit use as functional prior knowledge, of the activation probabilities inferred by MSP.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207