What Can Local Transfer Entropy Tell us About Phase-amplitude Coupling in Electrophysiological Signals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modulation of the amplitude of high-frequency cortical field activity locked to changes in phase of a slower brain rhythm is known as phase-amplitude coupling (PAC). The study of this phenomenon has been gaining traction in neuroscience because of several reports on its appearance in normal and pathological brain processes in humans as well as across different mammalian species. This has led to the suggestion that PAC may be an intrinsic brain process that facilitates brain inter-area communication across different spatiotemporal scales. Several methods have been proposed to measure the PAC process, but few of these enable detailed study of its time course. It appears that no studies have reported details of PAC dynamics including its possible directional delay characteristics. Here, we study and characterize the use of a novel information theoretic measure that may address this limitation: local transfer entropy. We use both simulated and actual intracranial electroencephalographic data, and in both cases we observe initial indications that local transfer entropy can be used to detect the onset and offset of modulation process periods revealed by mutual information phase-amplitude coupling (MIPAC). We review our results in the context of current theories about PAC in brain electrical activity, and discuss technical issues that must be addressed to see local transfer entropy more widely applied to PAC analysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".