MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spontaneous network activity <35 Hz accounts for variability in stimulus-induced gamma responses

2019· article· en· W2989667247 on OpenAlexafffund
Jan V. Hirschmann, Sylvain Baillet, Mark W. Woolrich, Alfons Schnitzler, Diego Vidaurre, Esther Florin

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringWellcome TrustVolkswagen FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation Brain Canada
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)StimulationNeurosciencePsychologyPhotic StimulationBrain activity and meditationCognitionElectroencephalographyVisual perceptionCognitive psychologyPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gamma activity is thought to serve several cognitive processes, including attention and memory. Even for the simplest stimulus, the occurrence of gamma activity is highly variable, both within and between individuals. The sources of this variability, however, are largely unknown. In this paper, we address one possible cause: the cross-frequency influence of spontaneous, whole-brain network activity on visual stimulus processing. By applying Hidden Markov modelling to MEG data, we reveal that the trial-averaged gamma response to a moving grating depends on the individual network dynamics, inferred from slower brain activity (<35 ​Hz) in the absence of stimulation (resting-state and task baseline). In addition, we demonstrate that modulations of network activity in task baseline influence the gamma response on the level of trials. In summary, our results reveal a cross-frequency and cross-session association between gamma responses induced by visual stimulation and spontaneous network activity. These findings underline the dependency of visual stimulus processing on the individual, functional network architecture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207