MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145324830 · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.00143.x

Reduced Alpha power associated with the recall of mentation from Stage 2 and Stage REM sleep

2004· article· en· W2145324830 on OpenAlexaff
Maria José Esposito, Toré Nielsen, Tyna Paquette

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySleep (system call)Alpha (finance)ElectroencephalographyRecallWakefulnessAudiologyK-complexCognitionSlow-wave sleepDelta RhythmSleep StagesNon-rapid eye movement sleepAlpha rhythmDevelopmental psychologyPolysomnographyCognitive psychologyNeurosciencePsychometricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relationships between Alpha (8-12 Hz) activity and cognitive processes during wakefulness raise the possibility of similar relationships between Alpha and cognitive activity during sleep. We hypothesized that Alpha power decreases during both Stage 2 and REM sleep would index the presence of sleep mentation in these stages. Absolute power for six classical EEG bands and three Alpha subbands was calculated for Stage 2 and REM sleep awakenings both with and without mentation recall. In both stages, recall was associated with lower Alpha power, especially with middle Alpha power (9.5-11.5 Hz). Unexpectedly, a similar effect for Delta power (0.5-4.0 Hz) was also observed. The Alpha effect may reflect cognitive elaboration active in the minutes preceding awakening; however, attention and memory processes cannot be excluded. The Delta effect is consistent with prior observations of regular linkages between Alpha and Delta power during sleep.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations86
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychophysiologySame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207