Extracting electrophysiological correlates of functional magnetic resonance imaging data using the canonical polyadic decomposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relation between electrophysiology and BOLD-fMRI requires further elucidation. One approach for studying this relation is to find time-frequency features from electrophysiology that explain the variance of BOLD time-series. Convolution of these features with a canonical hemodynamic response function (HRF) is often required to model neurovascular coupling mechanisms and thus account for time shifts between electrophysiological and BOLD-fMRI data. We propose a framework for extracting the spatial distribution of these time-frequency features while also estimating more flexible, region-specific HRFs. The core component of this method is the decomposition of a tensor containing impulse response functions using the Canonical Polyadic Decomposition. The outputs of this decomposition provide insight into the relation between electrophysiology and BOLD-fMRI and can be used to construct estimates of BOLD time-series. We demonstrated the performance of this method on simulated data while also examining the effects of simulated measurement noise and physiological confounds. Afterwards, we validated our method on publicly available task-based and resting-state EEG-fMRI data. We adjusted our method to accommodate the multisubject nature of these datasets, enabling the investigation of inter-subject variability with regards to EEG-to-BOLD neurovascular coupling mechanisms. We thus also demonstrate how EEG features for modelling the BOLD signal differ across subjects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".