MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168380040 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2005.869791

Bayesian Spatio-Temporal Approach for EEG Source Reconstruction: Conciliating ECD and Distributed Models

2006· article· en· W2168380040 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Daunizeau, Jérémie Mattout, Diego Clonda, B. Goulard, Habib Benali, J.-M. Lina

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsMagnetoencephalographyComputer scienceElectroencephalographyInverse problemBayesian probabilityHyperparameterArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Characterizing the cortical activity sources of electroencephalography (EEG)/magnetoencephalography data is a critical issue since it requires solving an ill-posed inverse problem that does not admit a unique solution. Two main different and complementary source models have emerged: equivalent current dipoles (ECD) and distributed linear (DL) models. While ECD models remain highly popular since they provide an easy way to interpret the solutions, DL models (also referred to as imaging techniques) are known to be more realistic and flexible. In this paper, we show how those two representations of the brain electromagnetic activity can be cast into a common general framework yielding an optimal description and estimation of the EEG sources. From this extended source mixing model, we derive a hybrid approach whose key aspect is the separation between temporal and spatial characteristics of brain activity, which allows to dramatically reduce the number of DL model parameters. Furthermore, the spatial profile of the sources, as a temporal invariant map, is estimated using the entire time window data, allowing to significantly enhance the information available about the spatial aspect of the EEG inverse problem. A Bayesian framework is introduced to incorporate distinct temporal and spatial constraints on the solution and to estimate both parameters and hyperparameters of the model. Using simulated EEG data, the proposed inverse approach is evaluated and compared with standard distributed methods using both classical criteria and ROC curves.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations75
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207