Region-specific complexity of the intracranial EEG in the sleeping human brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the brain is a complex system with occurrence of self-similarity at different levels, a dedicated analysis of the complexity of brain signals is of interest to elucidate the functional role of various brain regions across the various stages of vigilance. We exploited intracranial electroencephalogram data from 38 cortical regions using the Higuchi fractal dimension (HFD) as measure to assess brain complexity, on a dataset of 1772 electrode locations. HFD values depended on sleep stage and topography. HFD increased with higher levels of vigilance, being highest during wakefulness in the frontal lobe. HFD did not change from wake to stage N2 in temporo-occipital regions. The transverse temporal gyrus was the only area in which the HFD did not differ between any two vigilance stages. Interestingly, HFD of wakefulness and stage R were different mainly in the precentral gyrus, possibly reflecting motor inhibition in stage R. The fusiform and parahippocampal gyri were the only areas showing no difference between wakefulness and N2. Stages R and N2 were similar only for the postcentral gyrus. Topographical analysis of brain complexity revealed that sleep stages are clearly differentiated in fronto-central brain regions, but that temporo-occipital regions sleep differently.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".