MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897915918 · doi:10.1101/441626

Measuring the average power of neural oscillations

2018· preprint· en· W2897915918 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Liz Izhikevich, Richard Gao, Erik Peterson, Bradley Voytek

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWhitehall FoundationUniversity of California, San DiegoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSpectral densityPower (physics)Computer scienceElectroencephalographyNarrowbandPerceptionPsychologyEconometricsStatisticsMathematicsNeurosciencePhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Neural oscillations are often quantified as average power relative to a cognitive, perceptual, and/or behavioral task. This is commonly done using Fourier-based techniques, such as Welch’s method for estimating the power spectral density, and/or by estimating narrowband oscillatory power across trials, conditions, and/or groups. The core assumption underlying these approaches is that the mean is an appropriate measure of central tendency. Despite the importance of this assumption, it has not been rigorously tested. New method We introduce extensions of common approaches that are better suited for the physiological reality of how neural oscillations often manifest: as nonstationary, high-power bursts, rather than sustained rhythms. Log-transforming, or taking the median power, significantly reduces erroneously inflated power estimates. Results Analyzing 101 participants’ worth of human electrophysiology, totaling 3,560 channels and over 40 hours data, we show that, in all cases examined, spectral power is not Gaussian distributed. This is true even when oscillations are prominent and sustained, such as visual cortical alpha. Power across time, at every frequency, is characterized by a substantial long tail, which implies that estimates of average power are skewed toward large, infrequent high-power oscillatory bursts. Comparison with existing methods In a simulated event-related experiment we show how introducing just a few high-power oscillatory bursts, as seen in real data, can, perhaps erroneously, cause significant differences between conditions using traditional methods. These erroneous effects are substantially reduced with our new methods. Conclusions These results call into question the validity of common statistical practices in neural oscillation research. Highlights Analyses of oscillatory power often assume power is normally distributed. Analyzing >40 hours of human M/EEG and ECoG, we show that in all cases it is not. This effect is demonstrated in simple simulation of an event-related task. Overinflated power estimates are reduced via log-transformation or median power.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207