EEG-connectivity: A fundamental guide and checklist for optimal study design and evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain connectivity can be estimated through a wide number of analyses applied to electroencephalographic (EEG) data. However, substantial heterogeneity in the implementation of connectivity methods exist. Heterogeneity in conceptualization of connectivity measures, data collection, or data pre-processing may be associated with variability in robustness of measurement. While it is difficult to compare the results of studies using different EEG connectivity measures, standardization of processing and reporting may facilitate the task. We discuss how factors such as referencing, epoch length and number, controls for volume conduction, artefact removal, and statistical control of multiple comparisons influence the EEG connectivity estimate for connectivity measures, and what can be done to control for potential confounds associated with these factors. Based on the results reported in previous literature, this article presents recommendations and a novel checklist developed for quality assessment of EEG connectivity studies. This checklist and its recommendations are made in an effort to draw attention to factors that may influence connectivity estimates and factors that need to be improved in future research. Standardization of procedures and reporting in EEG connectivity may lead to EEG connectivity studies to be made more synthesisable and comparable despite variations in the methodology underlying connectivity estimates.
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 | 0.314 | 0.470 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.016 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".