Recommendations and publication guidelines for studies using frequency domain and time‐frequency domain analyses of neural time series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its beginnings in the early 20th century, the psychophysiological study of human brain function has included research into the spectral properties of electrical and magnetic brain signals. Now, dramatic advances in digital signal processing, biophysics, and computer science have enabled increasingly sophisticated methodology for neural time series analysis. Innovations in hardware and recording techniques have further expanded the range of tools available to researchers interested in measuring, quantifying, modeling, and altering the spectral properties of neural time series. These tools are increasingly used in the field, by a growing number of researchers who vary in their training, background, and research interests. Implementation and reporting standards also vary greatly in the published literature, causing challenges for authors, readers, reviewers, and editors alike. The present report addresses this issue by providing recommendations for the use of these methods, with a focus on foundational aspects of frequency domain and time-frequency analyses. It also provides publication guidelines, which aim to (1) foster replication and scientific rigor, (2) assist new researchers who wish to enter the field of brain oscillations, and (3) facilitate communication among authors, reviewers, and editors.
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 | 0.299 | 0.727 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.089 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".