Separating cognitive processes with principal components analysis of EEG time-frequency distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurement of EEG event-related potential (ERP) data has been most commonly undertaken in the time-domain, which can be complicated to interpret when separable activity overlaps in time. When the overlapping activity has distinct frequency characteristics, however, time-frequency (TF) signal processing techniques can be useful. The current report utilized ERP data from a cognitive task producing typical feedback-related negativity (FRN) and P300 ERP components which overlap in time. TF transforms were computed using the binomial reduced interference distribution (RID), and the resulting TF activity was then characterized using principal components analysis (PCA). Consistent with previous work, results indicate that the FRN was more related to theta activity (3-7 Hz) and P300 more to delta activity (below 3 Hz). At the same time, both time-domain measures were shown to be mixtures of TF theta and delta activity, highlighting the difficulties with overlapping activity. The TF theta and delta measures, on the other hand, were largely independent from each other, but also independently indexed the feedback stimulus parameters investigated. Results support the view that TF decomposition can greatly improve separation of overlapping EEG/ERP activity relevant to cognitive models of performance monitoring.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".