Frequency specific network effective connectivity: ERP analysis of recognition memory process by directed connectivity estimators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Various processes occur in memory retrieval in recognition memory and it is necessary to investigate memory brain function. Most of the research in past decades have focused on particular brain region function, but the interaction between these has a major role in human cognition. In this study, we used the memory retrieval task to investigate the underlying mechanism of recognition memory. The connectivity between brain regions is estimated from scalp electroencephalography signals that were recorded from twenty-three healthy subject participated in recognition memory task to correctly classify old/new words. Multivariate autoregressive models (MVAR) are used for the determination of Granger causality to estimate the effective connectivity in the time-frequency domain. We use GPDC and dDTF methods because they have almost resolved the previous problems in estimations. Results show that brain regions in the old condition have greater global connectivity in the theta and gamma band compared to the new words retrieval. Connectivity within and between the brain’s hemisphere may be related to correct rejection. The left frontal has a crucial role in recollection. theta and gamma specific connectivity pattern between temporal, parietal and frontal cortex may disclose the retrieval mechanism. old/new comparison resulted in the different patterns of network connection. These results and other evidence emphasize the role of frequency of causal network interactions in the memory process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".