Sensitivity of amplitude and phase based MEG measures of interhemispheric connectivity during unilateral finger movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions between different brain regions can be revealed by dependencies between their neuronal oscillations. We examined the sensitivity of different oscillatory connectivity measures in revealing interhemispheric interactions between primary motor cortices (M1s) during unilateral finger movements. Based on frequency, amplitude, and phase of the oscillations, a number of metrics have been developed to measure connectivity between brain regions, and each metric has its own strengths, weaknesses, and pitfalls. Taking advantage of the well-known movement-related modulations of oscillatory amplitude in M1s, this study compared and contrasted a number of leading connectivity metrics during distinct phases of oscillatory power changes. Between M1s during unilateral movements, we found that phase-based metrics were effective at revealing connectivity during the beta (15-35 Hz) rebound period linked to movement termination, but not during the early period of beta desynchronization occurring during the movement itself. Amplitude correlation metrics revealed robust connectivity during both periods. Techniques for estimating the direction of connectivity had limited success. Granger Causality was not well suited to studying these connections because it was strongly confounded by differences in signal-to-noise ratio linked to modulation of beta amplitude occurring during the task. Phase slope index was suggestive but not conclusive of a unidirectional influence between motor cortices during the beta rebound. Our findings suggest that a combination of amplitude and phase-based metrics is likely required to fully characterize connectivity during task protocols that involve modulation of oscillatory power, and that amplitude-based metrics appear to be more sensitive despite the lack of directional information.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".