Alpha and theta peak frequency track on- and off-thoughts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our thoughts are highly dynamic in their contents. At some points, our thoughts are related to external stimuli or tasks focusing on single content (on-single thoughts), While in other moments, they are drifting away with multiple simultaneous items as contents (off-multiple thoughts). Can such thought dynamics be tracked by corresponding neurodynamics? To address this question, here we track thought dynamics during post-stimulus periods by electroencephalogram (EEG) neurodynamics of alpha and theta peak frequency which, as based on the phase angle, must be distinguished from non-phase-based alpha and theta power. We show how, on the psychological level, on-off thoughts are highly predictive of single-multiple thought contents, respectively. Using EEG, on-single and off-multiple thoughts are mediated by opposite changes in the time courses of alpha (high in on-single but low in off-multiple thoughts) and theta (low in on-single but high in off-multiple thoughts) peak frequencies. In contrast, they cannot be distinguished by frequency power. Overall, these findings provide insight into how alpha and theta peak frequency with their phase-related processes track on- and off-thoughts dynamically. In short, neurodynamics track thought dynamics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".