Complexity Matching: Brain Signals Mirror Environment Information Patterns during Music Listening and Reward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how the human brain integrates information from the environment with intrinsic brain signals to produce individual perspectives is an essential element of understanding the human mind. Brain signal complexity, measured with multiscale entropy, has been employed as a measure of information processing in the brain, and we propose that it can also be used to measure the information available from a stimulus. We can directly assess the correspondence between brain signal complexity and stimulus complexity as an indication of how well the brain reflects the content of the environment in an analysis that we term "complexity matching." Music is an ideal stimulus because it is a multidimensional signal with a rich temporal evolution and because of its emotion- and reward-inducing potential. When participants focused on acoustic features of music, we found that EEG complexity was lower and more closely resembled the musical complexity compared to an emotional task that asked them to monitor how the music made them feel. Music-derived reward scores on the Barcelona Music Reward Questionnaire correlated with less complexity matching but higher EEG complexity. Compared with perceptual-level processing, emotional and reward responses are associated with additional internal information processes above and beyond those linked to the external stimulus. In other words, the brain adds something when judging the emotional valence of music.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".