Differential classification of states of consciousness using envelope- and phase-based functional connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of sophisticated computational tools to quantify changes in the brain's oscillatory dynamics across states of consciousness have included both envelope- and phase-based measures of functional connectivity (FC), but there are very few direct comparisons of these techniques using the same dataset. The goal of this study was to compare an envelope-based (i.e. Amplitude Envelope Correlation, AEC) and a phase-based (i.e. weighted Phase Lag Index, wPLI) measure of FC in their classification of states of consciousness. Nine healthy participants underwent a three-hour experimental anesthetic protocol with propofol induction and isoflurane maintenance, in which five minutes of 128-channel electroencephalography were recorded before, during, and after anesthetic-induced unconsciousness, at the following time points: Baseline; light sedation with propofol (Light Sedation); deep unconsciousness following three hours of surgical levels of anesthesia with isoflurane (Unconscious); five minutes prior to the recovery of consciousness (Pre-ROC); and three hours following the recovery of consciousness (Recovery). Support vector machine classification was applied to the source-localized EEG in the alpha (8-13 Hz) frequency band in order to investigate the ability of AEC and wPLI (separately and together) to discriminate i) the four states from Baseline; ii) Unconscious ("deep" unconsciousness) vs. Pre-ROC ("light" unconsciousness); and iii) responsiveness (Baseline, Light Sedation, Recovery) vs. unresponsiveness (Unconscious, Pre-ROC). AEC and wPLI yielded different patterns of global connectivity across states of consciousness, with AEC showing the strongest network connectivity during the Unconscious epoch, and wPLI showing the strongest connectivity during full consciousness (i.e., Baseline and Recovery). Both measures also demonstrated differential predictive contributions across participants and used different brain regions for classification. AEC showed higher classification accuracy overall, particularly for distinguishing anesthetic-induced unconsciousness from Baseline (83.7 ± 0.8%). AEC also showed stronger classification accuracy than wPLI when distinguishing Unconscious from Pre-ROC (i.e., "deep" from "light" unconsciousness) (AEC: 66.3 ± 1.2%; wPLI: 56.2 ± 1.3%), and when distinguishing between responsiveness and unresponsiveness (AEC: 76.0 ± 1.3%; wPLI: 63.6 ± 1.8%). Classification accuracy was not improved compared to AEC when both AEC and wPLI were combined. This analysis of source-localized EEG data demonstrates that envelope- and phase-based FC provide different information about states of consciousness but that, on a group level, AEC is better able to detect relative alterations in brain FC across levels of anesthetic-induced unconsciousness compared to wPLI.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".