Estimation of narrowband amplitude and phase from electrophysiology signals for phase-amplitude coupling studies: a comparison of methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many functional connectivity studies based on electrophysiological measurements, such as electro- and magnetoencephalography (EEG/MEG), start their investigations by extracting a narrowband representation of brain activity time series, and then computing their envelope amplitudes and instantaneous phases, which serve as inputs to subsequent data processing. The two most popular approaches for obtaining these narrowband amplitudes and phases are: bandpass filtering followed by Hilbert transform (we call this the Hilbert approach); and convolution with wavelet kernels (the wavelet approach). In this work, we investigate how these two approaches perform in detecting the phenomenon of phase-amplitude coupling (PAC), whereby the amplitude of a high-frequency signal is driven by the phase of a low-frequency signal. The comparison of both approaches is carried out by means of simulated brain activity, from which we run receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses, and of experimental MEG data from a visuomotor coordination study. The ROC analyses show that both approaches have comparable accuracy, except in the presence of interfering signals with frequencies near the high-frequency band. As for the visuomotor data, the most noticeable impact of the choice of approach was observed when evaluating task-based changes in PAC between the delta (2-5 Hz) and the high-gamma (60-90 Hz) frequency bands, as we were able to identify widespread brain areas with statistically significant effects only with the Hilbert approach. These results provide preliminary evidence of the advantages of the Hilbert approach over the wavelet approach, at least in the context of PAC estimates.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".