Connectomics of human electrophysiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present both a scientific overview and conceptual positions concerning the challenges and assets of electrophysiological measurements in the search for the nature and functions of the human connectome. We discuss how the field has been inspired by findings and approaches from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and informed by a small number of significant multimodal empirical studies, which show that the canonical networks that are commonplace in fMRI are in fact rooted in electrophysiological processes. This review is also an opportunity to produce a brief, up-to-date critical survey of current data modalities and analytical methods available for deriving both static and dynamic connectomes from electrophysiology. We review hurdles that challenge the significance and impact of current electrophysiology connectome research. We then encourage the field to take a leap of faith and embrace the wealth of electrophysiological signals, despite their apparent, disconcerting complexity. Our position is that electrophysiology connectomics is poised to inform testable mechanistic models of information integration in hierarchical brain networks, constructed from observable oscillatory and aperiodic signal components and their polyrhythmic interactions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".