Assessing the relevance of fMRI-based prior in the EEG inverse problem: a bayesian model comparison approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characterizing the cortical activity from electro- and magneto-encephalography (EEG/MEG) data requires solving an ill-posed inverse problem that does not admit a unique solution. As a consequence, the use of functional neuroimaging, for instance, functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), constitutes an appealing way of constraining the solution. However, the match between bioelectric and metabolic activities is desirable but not assured. Therefore, the introduction of spatial priors derived from other functional modalities in the EEG/MEG inverse problem should be considered with caution. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian characterization of the relevance of fMRI-derived prior information regarding the EEG/MEG data. This is done by quantifying the adequacy of this prior to the data, compared with that obtained using an noninformative prior instead. This quantitative comparison, using the so-called Bayes factor, allows us to decide whether the informative prior should (or not) be included in the inverse solution. We validate our approach using extensive simulations, where fMRI-derived priors are built as perturbed versions of the simulated EEG sources. Moreover, we show how this inference framework can be generalized to optimize the way we should incorporate the informative prior.
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 | 0.020 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".