MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123140981 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2001.1020523

Information dynamics view of brain processing function

2005· article· en· W2123140981 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C.J. James, David Lowe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalAston University
KeywordsComputer scienceIndependent component analysisUnobservableEmbeddingManifold (fluid mechanics)Entropy (arrow of time)Matrix (chemical analysis)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a methodology for the analysis of electromagnetic (EM) brain signals. In a dynamical systems framework we assume that the measured electroencephalogram (EEG) and the magnetoencephalogram (MEG) are generated by the non-linear interaction of a few degrees of freedom. Within this framework, we then construct an embedding matrix, which consists of a series of consecutive delay vectors. The embedding matrix describes a trajectory on the Euclidean manifold recreating the unobservable system manifold, which is assumed to be generating the measured data. The embedding matrix can be used to quantify system complexity, which changes with the changes in brain-'state'. To this end, we use measures of entropy and Fisher's information measure to track changes in complexity of the system over time. It is also possible to perform Independent Component Analysis on the embedding matrix to decompose the single channel recording into a set of underlying independent components. The independent components are treated as a convenient expansion basis and subjective methods are used to identify components of interest relevant to the application at hand. The method is applied to just single channels of both EEG and MEG recordings and is shown to give intuitive and meaningful results in a neurophysiological setting.

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)0.000
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 score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207