MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EEG variability: Task-driven or subject-driven signal of interest?

2022· article· en· W4214493602 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin Gibson, Nancy J. Lobaugh, Steve Joordens, Anthony R. McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthBaycrest Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJames S. McDonnell Foundation
KeywordsElectroencephalographyVariation (astronomy)Task (project management)CorrelationCognitionElementary cognitive taskPsychologyBrain activity and meditationMeasure (data warehouse)Sensitivity (control systems)SIGNAL (programming language)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceMathematicsNeuroscienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurons in the brain are seldom perfectly quiet. They continually receive input and generate output, resulting in highly variable patterns of ongoing activity. Yet the functional significance of this variability is not well understood. If brain signal variability is functionally relevant and serves as an important indicator of cognitive function, then it should be highly sensitive to the precise manner in which a cognitive system is engaged and/or relate strongly to differences in behavioral performance. To test this, we examined EEG activity in younger adults as they performed a cognitive skill learning task and during rest. Several measures of EEG variability and signal strength were calculated in overlapping time windows that spanned the trial interval. We performed a systematic examination of the factors that most strongly influenced the variability and strength of EEG activity. First, we examined the relative sensitivity of each measure to across-subject variation (within blocks) and across-block variation (within subjects). We found that the across-subject variation in EEG variability and signal strength was much stronger than the across-block variation. Second, we examined the sensitivity of each measure to different sources of across-block variation during skill acquisition. We found that key task-driven changes in EEG activity were best reflected in changes in the strength, rather than the variability, of EEG activity. Lastly, we examined across-subject variation in each measure and its relationship with behavior. We found that individual differences in response time measures were best reflected in individual differences in the variability, rather than the strength, of EEG activity. Importantly, we found that individual differences in EEG variability related strongly to stable indicators of subject identity rather than dynamic indicators of subject performance. We therefore suggest that EEG variability may provide a more sensitive subject-driven measure of individual differences than task-driven signal of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.215
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.152 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207