Nervous Activity of the Brain in Five Dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nervous activity of the brain takes place in higher-dimensional functional spaces. It has been proposed that the brain might be equipped with phase spaces characterized by four spatial dimensions plus time, instead of the classical three plus time. This suggests that global visualization methods for exploiting four-dimensional maps of three-dimensional experimental data sets might be used in neuroscience. We asked whether it is feasible to describe the four-dimensional trajectories (plus time) of two-dimensional (plus time) electroencephalographic traces (EEG). We made use of quaternion orthographic projections to map to the surface of four-dimensional hyperspheres EEG signal patches treated with Fourier analysis. Once achieved the proper quaternion maps, we show that this multi-dimensional procedure brings undoubted benefits. The treatment of EEG traces with Fourier analysis allows the investigation the scale-free activity of the brain in terms of trajectories on hyperspheres and quaternionic networks. Repetitive spatial and temporal patterns undetectable in three dimensions (plus time) are easily enlightened in four dimensions (plus time). Further, a quaternionic approach makes it feasible to identify spatially far apart and temporally distant periodic trajectories with the same features, such as, e.g., the same oscillatory frequency or amplitude. This leads to an incisive operational assessment of global or broken symmetries, domains of attraction inside three-dimensional projections and matching descriptions between the apparently random paths hidden in the very structure of nervous fractal signals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".