Is There a Nonadditive Interaction Between Spontaneous and Evoked Activity? Phase-Dependence and Its Relation to the Temporal Structure of Scale-Free Brain Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of our study was to use functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate how spontaneous activity interacts with evoked activity, as well as how the temporal structure of spontaneous activity, that is, long-range temporal correlations, relate to this interaction. Using an extremely sparse event-related design (intertrial intervals: 52-60 s), a novel blood oxygen level-dependent signal correction approach (accounting for spontaneous fluctuations using pseudotrials) and phase analysis, we provided direct evidence for a nonadditive interaction between spontaneous and evoked activity. We demonstrated the discrepancy between the present and previous observations on why a linear superposition between spontaneous and evoked activity can be seen by using co-occurring signals from homologous brain regions. Importantly, we further demonstrated that the nonadditive interaction can be characterized by phase-dependent effects of spontaneous activity, which is closely related to the degree of long-range temporal correlations in spontaneous activity as indexed by both power-law exponent and phase-amplitude coupling. Our findings not only contribute to the understanding of spontaneous brain activity and its scale-free properties, but also bear important implications for our understanding of neural activity in general.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".