Reproducibility of the hemodynamic response to auditory oddball stimuli: A six‐week test–retest study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the reliability and reproducibility of the hemodynamic response is important for the interpretation and understanding of the results of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiments. We describe a whole brain fMRI study designed to examine the reproducibility of the event-related hemodynamic response elicited by low-probability task-relevant target stimuli and low-probability task-irrelevant novel stimuli assessed 6 weeks apart. Reliable activation was observed during test and retest for processing of target stimuli in multiple frontal, temporal, parietal, cerebellar, and subcortical sites. Novel stimuli elicited reliable activation during test and retest in lateral frontal cortex, inferior parietal lobule, and lateral temporal cortex, though there was evidence of habituation at some cortical sites. The patterns of activation associated with target detection and novelty processing are consistent with the intracranial distribution of the neural sources generated during similar tasks and replicate the results of previous event-related fMRI studies. The observed pattern of results supports the hypothesis that the hemodynamic response to target and novel stimuli is highly reproducible over the 6-week test-retest period.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it