MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2387021198 · doi:10.1162/neco_a_00846

1D Current Source Density (CSD) Estimation in Inverse Theory: A Unified Framework for Higher-Order Spectral Regularization of Quadrature and Expansion-Type CSD Methods

2016· article· en· W2387021198 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal Kropf, Amir Shmuel

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Computation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasis functionMathematicsInverse problemSingular value decompositionTikhonov regularizationApplied mathematicsAlgorithmKernel density estimationRegularization (linguistics)DiscretizationMathematical optimizationMathematical analysisComputer scienceStatisticsEstimatorArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimation of current source density (CSD) from the low-frequency part of extracellular electric potential recordings is an unstable linear inverse problem. To make the estimation possible in an experimental setting where recordings are contaminated with noise, it is necessary to stabilize the inversion. Here we present a unified framework for zero- and higher-order singular-value-decomposition (SVD)-based spectral regularization of 1D (linear) CSD estimation from local field potentials. The framework is based on two general approaches commonly employed for solving inverse problems: quadrature and basis function expansion. We first show that both inverse CSD (iCSD) and kernel CSD (kCSD) fall into the category of basis function expansion methods. We then use these general categories to introduce two new estimation methods, quadrature CSD (qCSD), based on discretizing the CSD integral equation with a chosen quadrature rule, and representer CSD (rCSD), an even-determined basis function expansion method that uses the problem's data kernels (representers) as basis functions. To determine the best candidate methods to use in the analysis of experimental data, we compared the different methods on simulations under three regularization schemes (Tikhonov, tSVD, and dSVD), three regularization parameter selection methods (NCP, L-curve, and GCV), and seven different a priori spatial smoothness constraints on the CSD distribution. This resulted in a comparison of 531 estimation schemes. We evaluated the estimation schemes according to their source reconstruction accuracy by testing them using different simulated noise levels, lateral source diameters, and CSD depth profiles. We found that ranking schemes according to the average error over all tested conditions results in a reproducible ranking, where the top schemes are found to perform well in the majority of tested conditions. However, there is no single best estimation scheme that outperforms all others under all tested conditions. The unified framework we propose expands the set of available estimation methods, provides increased flexibility for 1D CSD estimation in noisy experimental conditions, and allows for a meaningful comparison between estimation schemes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural ComputationSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207