Recognizing an Object from the Sum of Its Parts: An Intracranial Study on Alpha Rhythms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the relation of alpha rhythms and object recognition. Alpha has been generally proposed to be associated with attention and memory and to be particularly important for the mediation of long-distance communication between neuronal populations. However, how these apply to object recognition is still unclear. This study aimed at describing the spatiotemporal dynamics of alpha rhythms while recognizing fragmented images of objects presented for the first time and presented again 24 hr later. Intracranial electroencephalography was performed in six epileptic patients undergoing presurgical evaluation. Time-frequency analysis revealed a strong alpha activity, mainly of the evoked type, propagating from posterior cerebral areas to anterior regions, which was similar whether the objects were recognized or not. Phase coherence analysis, however, showed clear phase synchronization specific for the moment of recognition. Twenty-four hr later, frontal regions displayed stronger alpha activity and more distributed phase synchronization than when images were presented for the first time. In conclusion, alpha amplitude seems to be related to nonspecific mechanism. Phase coherence analysis suggests a communicational role of alpha activity in object recognition, which may be important for the comparison between bottom-up representations and memory templates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".