Comparing MEG and high-density EEG for intrinsic functional connectivity mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has been used in conjunction with resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) based on band-limited power envelope correlation to study the intrinsic human brain network organization into resting-state networks (RSNs). However, the limited availability of current MEG systems hampers the clinical applications of electrophysiological rsFC. Here, we directly compared well-known RSNs as well as the whole-brain rsFC connectome together with its state dynamics, obtained from simultaneously-recorded MEG and high-density scalp electroencephalography (EEG) resting-state data. We also examined the impact of head model precision on EEG rsFC estimation, by comparing results obtained with boundary and finite element head models. Results showed that most RSN topographies obtained with MEG and EEG are similar, except for the fronto-parietal network. At the connectome level, sensitivity was lower to frontal rsFC and higher to parieto-occipital rsFC with MEG compared to EEG. This was mostly due to inhomogeneity of MEG sensor locations relative to the scalp and significant MEG-EEG differences disappeared when taking relative MEG-EEG sensor locations into account. The default-mode network was the only RSN requiring advanced head modeling in EEG, in which gray and white matter are distinguished. Importantly, comparison of rsFC state dynamics evidenced a poor correspondence between MEG and scalp EEG, suggesting sensitivity to different components of transient neural functional integration. This study therefore shows that the investigation of static rsFC based on the human brain connectome can be performed with scalp EEG in a similar way than with MEG, opening the avenue to widespread clinical applications of rsFC analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".