MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prestimulus dynamics blend with the stimulus in neural variability quenching

2021· article· en· W3165529455 on OpenAlexaff
Annemarie Wolff, Liang Chen, Shankar Tumati, Mehrshad Golesorkhi, Javier Gómez‐Pilar, Jie Hu, Shize Jiang, Ying Mao, André Longtin, Georg Northoff

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersH2020 Fast Track to InnovationNational Key Research and Development Program of China Stem Cell and Translational Research
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)AudiologyPsychologyNeural activityElectroencephalographyStandard deviationReplicateNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMedicineMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural responses to the same stimulus show significant variability over trials, with this variability typically reduced (quenched) after a stimulus is presented. This trial-to-trial variability (TTV) has been much studied, however how this neural variability quenching is influenced by the ongoing dynamics of the prestimulus period is unknown. Utilizing a human intracranial stereo-electroencephalography (sEEG) data set, we investigate how prestimulus dynamics, as operationalized by standard deviation (SD), shapes poststimulus activity through trial-to-trial variability (TTV). We first observed greater poststimulus variability quenching in those real trials exhibiting high prestimulus variability as observed in all frequency bands. Next, we found that the relative effect of the stimulus was higher in the later (300-600ms) than the earlier (0-300ms) poststimulus period. Lastly, we replicate our findings in a separate EEG dataset and extend them by finding that trials with high prestimulus variability in the theta and alpha bands had faster reaction times. Together, our results demonstrate that stimulus-related activity, including its variability, is a blend of two factors: 1) the effects of the external stimulus itself, and 2) the effects of the ongoing dynamics spilling over from the prestimulus period - the state at stimulus onset - with the second dwarfing the influence of the first.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations49
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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