Modeling the hemodynamic response function using simultaneous EEG-fMRI data and convolutional sparse coding analysis with rank-1 constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the last few years, an increasing body of evidence points to the hemodynamic response function as an important confound of resting-state functional connectivity. Several studies in the literature proposed using blind deconvolution of resting-state fMRI data to retrieve the HRF, which can be subsequently used for hemodynamic deblurring. A basic hypothesis in these studies is that relevant information of the resting-state brain dynamics is condensed in discrete events resulting in large amplitude peaks in the BOLD signal. In this work, we showed that important information of resting-state activity, in addition to the larger amplitude peaks, is also concentrated in lower amplitude peaks. Moreover, due to the strong effect of physiological noise and head motion on the BOLD signal, which in many cases may not be completely removed after preprocessing, the neurophysiological origin of the large amplitude BOLD signal peaks is questionable. Hence, focusing on the large amplitude BOLD signal peaks may yield biased HRF estimates. To define discrete events of neuronal origins, we proposed using simultaneous EEG-fMRI along with convolutional sparse coding analysis. Our results suggested that events detected in the EEG are able to describe the slow oscillations of the BOLD signal and to obtain consistent HRF shapes across subjects under both task-based and resting-state conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".