Variability and task-responsiveness of electrophysiological dynamics: Scale-free stability and oscillatory flexibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cortical oscillations and scale-free neural activity are thought to influence a variety of cognitive functions, but their differential relationships to neural stability and flexibility has never been investigated. Based on the existing literature, we hypothesize that scale-free and oscillatory processes in the brain exhibit different trade-offs between stability and flexibility; specifically, cortical oscillations may reflect variable, task-responsive aspects of brain activity, while scale-free activity is proposed to reflect a more stable and task-unresponsive aspect. We test this hypothesis using data from two large-scale MEG studies (HCP: n = 89; CamCAN: n = 195), operationalizing stability and flexibility by task-responsiveness and spontaneous intra-subject variability in resting state. We demonstrate that the power-law exponent of scale-free activity is a highly stable parameter, which responds little to external cognitive demands and shows minimal spontaneous fluctuations over time. In contrast, oscillatory power, particularly in the alpha range (8-13 Hz), responds strongly to tasks and exhibits comparatively large spontaneous fluctuations over time. In sum, our data support differential roles for oscillatory and scale-free activity in the brain with respect to neural stability and flexibility. This result carries implications for criticality-based theories of scale-free activity, state-trait models of variability, and homeostatic views of the brain with regulated variables vs. effectors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".