MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167768151 · doi:10.1101/2021.05.19.444800

In-phase and in-antiphase connectivity in EEG

2021· preprint· en· W3167768151 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian O’Reilly, John D. Lewis, Rebecca J. Theilmann, Mayada Elsabbagh, Jeanne Townsend

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNational Institute on AgingUniversity of California, San DiegoNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsElectroencephalographyLagPhase lagNeuroscienceSynchronization (alternating current)EEG-fMRIFunctional connectivityPsychologyComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Zero-lag synchrony is generally discarded from functional connectivity studies to eliminate the confounding effect of volume conduction. Demonstrating genuine and significant unlagged synchronization between distant brain regions would indicate that most electroencephalography (EEG) connectivity studies neglect an important mechanism for neuronal communication. We previously demonstrated that local field potentials recorded intracranially tend to synchronize with no lag between homotopic brain regions. This synchrony occurs most frequently in antiphase, potentially supporting corpus callosal inhibition and interhemispheric rivalry. We are now extending our investigation to EEG. By comparing the coherency in a recorded and a surrogate dataset, we confirm the presence of a significant proportion of genuine zero-lag synchrony unlikely to be due to volume conduction or to recording reference artifacts. These results stress the necessity for integrating zero-lag synchrony in our understanding of neural communication and for disentangling volume conduction and zero-lag synchrony when estimating EEG sources and their functional connectivity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207