Dipole localization using beamforming and RAP-MUSIC on simulated intracerebral recordings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpreting intracerebral recordings in the search of an epileptic focus can be difficult because the amplitude of the potentials are misleading. Small generators located near the electrode site generate large potentials, which could swamp the signal of a nearby epileptic focus. In order to address this problem, two inverse problem algorithms, beamforming and recursively applied and projected multiple signal classification (RAP-MUSIC), were used with simulated intracerebral potentials to calculate equivalent dipole positions. Three dipoles were positioned in an infinite plane medium near three intracerebral electrodes. The potentials generated by the dipoles were simulated and contaminated with white noise. Initial localization simulations showed that both methods detected the sources accurately with RAP-MUSIC reporting lower orientation errors. A spatial resolution analysis for both methods was undertaken in which two dipoles were placed on a plane with the same orientation and overlapping time-courses. Beamforming was able to adequately distinguish the sources for separation distances of 1.2 cm, whereas RAP-MUSIC managed to separate the sources for dipoles as close as 0.4-0.6 cm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".