Electroencephalography, Magnetoencephalography, and Cognitive Reserve: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive reserve (CR) is the capacity to adapt to (future) brain damage without any or only minimal clinical symptoms. The underlying neuroplastic mechanisms remain unclear. Electrocorticography (ECOG), electroencephalography (EEG), and magnetoencephalography (MEG) may help elucidate the brain mechanisms underlying CR, as CR is thought to be related to efficient utilization of remaining brain resources. The purpose of this systematic review is to collect, evaluate, and synthesize the findings on neural correlates of CR estimates using ECOG, EEG, and MEG. METHOD: We examined articles that were published from the first standardized definition of CR. Eleven EEG and five MEG cross-sectional studies met the inclusion criteria: They concerned original research, analyzed (M)EEG in humans, used a validated CR estimate, and related (M)EEG to CR. Quality assessment was conducted using an adapted form of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. No ECOG study met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1383 participants from heterogeneous patient, young and older healthy groups were divided into three categories by (M)EEG methodology: Eight (M)EEG studies employed event-related fields or potentials, six studies analyzed brain oscillations at rest (of which one also analyzed a cognitive task), and three studies analyzed brain connectivity. Various CR estimates were employed and all studies compared different (M)EEG measures and CR estimates. Several associations between (M)EEG measures and CR estimates were observed. CONCLUSION: Our findings support that (M)EEG measures are related to CR estimates, particularly in healthy individuals. However, the character of this relationship is dependent on the population and task studied, warranting further studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".