<scp>Proof‐of‐concept</scp> evidence for trimodal simultaneous investigation of human brain function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The link between spatial (where) and temporal (when) aspects of the neural correlates of most psychological phenomena is not clear. Elucidation of this relation, which is crucial to fully understand human brain function, requires integration across multiple brain imaging modalities and cognitive tasks that reliably modulate the engagement of the brain systems of interest. By overcoming the methodological challenges posed by simultaneous recordings, the present report provides proof-of-concept evidence for a novel approach using three complementary imaging modalities: functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), event-related potentials (ERPs), and event-related optical signals (EROS). Using the emotional oddball task, a paradigm that taps into both cognitive and affective aspects of processing, we show the feasibility of capturing converging and complementary measures of brain function that are not currently attainable using traditional unimodal or other multimodal approaches. This opens up unprecedented possibilities to clarify spatiotemporal integration of brain function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".