From temporal to spatial topography: hierarchy of neural dynamics in higher- and lower-order networks shapes their complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brain shows a topographical hierarchy along the lines of lower- and higher-order networks. The exact temporal dynamics characterization of this lower-higher-order topography at rest and its impact on task states remains unclear, though. Using 2 functional magnetic resonance imaging data sets, we investigate lower- and higher-order networks in terms of the signal compressibility, operationalized by Lempel-Ziv complexity (LZC). As we assume that this degree of complexity is related to the slow-fast frequency balance, we also compute the median frequency (MF), an estimation of frequency distribution. We demonstrate (i) topographical differences at rest between higher- and lower-order networks, showing lower LZC and MF in the former; (ii) task-related and task-specific changes in LZC and MF in both lower- and higher-order networks; (iii) hierarchical relationship between LZC and MF, as MF at rest correlates with LZC rest-task change along the lines of lower- and higher-order networks; and (iv) causal and nonlinear relation between LZC at rest and LZC during task, with MF at rest acting as mediator. Together, results show that the topographical hierarchy of lower- and higher-order networks converges with their temporal hierarchy, with these neural dynamics at rest shaping their range of complexity during task states in a nonlinear way.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".