Structural templates for imaging EEG cortical sources in infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electroencephalographic (EEG) source reconstruction is a powerful approach that helps to unmix scalp signals, mitigates volume conduction issues, and allows anatomical localization of brain activity. Algorithms used to estimate cortical sources require an anatomical model of the head and the brain, generally reconstructed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). When such scans are unavailable, a population average can be used for adults, but no average surface template is available for cortical source imaging in infants. To address this issue, this paper introduces a new series of 12 anatomical models for subjects between zero and 24 months of age. These templates are built from MRI averages and volumetric boundary element method segmentation of head tissues available as part of the Neurodevelopmental MRI Database. Surfaces separating the pia mater, the gray matter, and the white matter were estimated using the Infant FreeSurfer pipeline. The surface of the skin as well as the outer and inner skull surfaces were extracted using a cube marching algorithm followed by Laplacian smoothing and mesh decimation. We post-processed these meshes to correct topological errors and ensure watertight meshes. The use of these templates for source reconstruction is demonstrated and validated using 100 high-density EEG recordings in 7-month-old infants. Hopefully, these templates will support future studies based on EEG source reconstruction and functional connectivity in healthy infants as well as in clinical pediatric populations. Particularly, they should make EEG-based neuroimaging more feasible in longitudinal neurodevelopmental studies where it may not be possible to scan infants at multiple time points. Graphical abstract Highlights Twelve surface templates for infants in the 0-2 years old range are proposed These templates can be used for EEG source reconstruction using existing toolboxes A relatively modest impact of age differences was found in this age range Correlation analysis confirms increasing source differences with age differences Sources reconstructed with infants versus adult templates significantly differ
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".