MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133293989 · doi:10.3390/biophysica1010004

Nervous Activity of the Brain in Five Dimensions

2021· article· en· W3133293989 on OpenAlexaff
Arturo Tozzi, James F. Peters, Norbert Jaušovec, Arjuna P. H. Don, Sheela Ramanna, Irina Legchenkova, Edward Bormashenko

Bibliographic record

VenueBiophysica · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyQuaternionComputer scienceFractal dimensionSIGNAL (programming language)VisualizationFractalMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematical analysisArtificial intelligenceGeometryNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiophysicaSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207