Reliability of Resting-State Microstate Features in Electroencephalography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electroencephalographic (EEG) microstate analysis is a method of identifying quasi-stable functional brain states ("microstates") that are altered in a number of neuropsychiatric disorders, suggesting their potential use as biomarkers of neurophysiological health and disease. However, use of EEG microstates as neurophysiological biomarkers requires assessment of the test-retest reliability of microstate analysis. METHODS: We analyzed resting-state, eyes-closed, 30-channel EEG from 10 healthy subjects over 3 sessions spaced approximately 48 hours apart. We identified four microstate classes and calculated the average duration, frequency, and coverage fraction of these microstates. Using Cronbach's α and the standard error of measurement (SEM) as indicators of reliability, we examined: (1) the test-retest reliability of microstate features using a variety of different approaches; (2) the consistency between TAAHC and k-means clustering algorithms; and (3) whether microstate analysis can be reliably conducted with 19 and 8 electrodes. RESULTS: The approach of identifying a single set of "global" microstate maps showed the highest reliability (mean Cronbach's α > 0.8, SEM ≈ 10% of mean values) compared to microstates derived by each session or each recording. There was notably low reliability in features calculated from maps extracted individually for each recording, suggesting that the analysis is most reliable when maps are held constant. Features were highly consistent across clustering methods (Cronbach's α > 0.9). All features had high test-retest reliability with 19 and 8 electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: High test-retest reliability and cross-method consistency of microstate features suggests their potential as biomarkers for assessment of the brain's neurophysiological health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".