MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557266798 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0275-16.2016

Characterizing Population EEG Dynamics throughout Adulthood

2016· article· en· W2557266798 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Hashemi, Lou Pino, Graeme Moffat, Karen J. Mathewson, Chris Aimone, Patrick Bennett, Louis A. Schmidt, Allison B. Sekuler

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsInteraXon (Canada)McMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectroencephalographyPsychologyAudiologyPopulationBrain activity and meditationDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceDemographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For decades, electroencephalography (EEG) has been a useful tool for investigating the neural mechanisms underlying human psychological processes. However, the amount of time needed to gather EEG data means that most laboratory studies use relatively small sample sizes. Using the Muse, a portable and wireless four-channel EEG headband, we obtained EEG recordings from 6029 subjects 18-88 years in age while they completed a category exemplar task followed by a meditation exercise. Here, we report age-related changes in EEG power at a fine chronological scale for δ, θ, α, and β bands, as well as peak α frequency and α asymmetry measures for both frontal and temporoparietal sites. We found that EEG power changed as a function of age, and that the age-related changes depended on sex and frequency band. We found an overall age-related shift in band power from lower to higher frequencies, especially for females. We also found a gradual, year-by-year slowing of the peak α frequency with increasing age. Finally, our analysis of α asymmetry revealed greater relative right frontal activity. Our results replicate several previous age- and sex-related findings and show how some previously observed changes during childhood extend throughout the lifespan. Unlike previous age-related EEG studies that were limited by sample size and restricted age ranges, our work highlights the advantage of using large, representative samples to address questions about developmental brain changes. We discuss our findings in terms of their relevance to attentional processes and brain-based models of emotional well-being and aging.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations119
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuroSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207