Patterns of Cortical Oscillations Organize Neural Activity into Whole-Brain Functional Networks Evident in the fMRI BOLD Signal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent findings from electrophysiology and multimodal neuroimaging have elucidated the relationship between patterns of cortical oscillations evident in EEG/MEG and the functional brain networks evident in the BOLD signal. Much of the existing literature emphasized how high-frequency cortical oscillations are thought to coordinate neural activity locally, while low-frequency oscillations play a role in coordinating activity between more distant brain regions. However, the assignment of different frequencies to different spatial scales is an oversimplification. A more informative approach is to explore the arrangements by which these low- and high-frequency oscillations work in concert, coordinating neural activity into whole-brain functional networks. When relating such networks to the BOLD signal, we must consider how the patterns of cortical oscillations change at the same speed as cognitive states, which often last less than a second. Consequently, the slower BOLD signal may often reflect the summed neural activity of several transient network configurations. This temporal mismatch can be circumvented if we use spatial maps to assess correspondence between oscillatory networks and BOLD networks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".