MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Can EEG and MEG detect signals from the human cerebellum?

2020· review· en· W3015908580 on OpenAlexafffund
Lau M. Andersen, Karim Jerbi, Sarang S. Dalal

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCarlsbergfondetEuropean Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaH2020 European Research CouncilCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCerebellumNeuroscienceMagnetoencephalographyElectroencephalographyElectrophysiologySensory systemPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cerebellum plays a key role in the regulation of motor learning, coordination and timing, and has been implicated in sensory and cognitive processes as well. However, our current knowledge of its electrophysiological mechanisms comes primarily from direct recordings in animals, as investigations into cerebellar function in humans have instead predominantly relied on lesion, haemodynamic and metabolic imaging studies. While the latter provide fundamental insights into the contribution of the cerebellum to various cerebellar-cortical pathways mediating behaviour, they remain limited in terms of temporal and spectral resolution. In principle, this shortcoming could be overcome by monitoring the cerebellum's electrophysiological signals. Non-invasive assessment of cerebellar electrophysiology in humans, however, is hampered by the limited spatial resolution of electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) in subcortical structures, i.e., deep sources. Furthermore, it has been argued that the anatomical configuration of the cerebellum leads to signal cancellation in MEG and EEG. Yet, claims that MEG and EEG are unable to detect cerebellar activity have been challenged by an increasing number of studies over the last decade. Here we address this controversy and survey reports in which electrophysiological signals were successfully recorded from the human cerebellum. We argue that the detection of cerebellum activity non-invasively with MEG and EEG is indeed possible and can be enhanced with appropriate methods, in particular using connectivity analysis in source space. We provide illustrative examples of cerebellar activity detected with MEG and EEG. Furthermore, we propose practical guidelines to optimize the detection of cerebellar activity with MEG and EEG. Finally, we discuss MEG and EEG signal contamination that may lead to localizing spurious sources in the cerebellum and suggest ways of handling such artefacts. This review is to be read as a perspective review that highlights that it is indeed possible to measure cerebellum with MEG and EEG and encourages MEG and EEG researchers to do so. Its added value beyond highlighting and encouraging is that it offers useful advice for researchers aspiring to investigate the cerebellum with MEG and EEG.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations145
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207