Simultaneous electroencephalography-functional magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of human brain function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) have long been used as tools to examine brain activity. Since both methods are very sensitive to changes of synaptic activity, simultaneous recording of EEG and fMRI can provide both high temporal and spatial resolution. Therefore, the two modalities are now integrated into a hybrid tool, EEG-fMRI, which encapsulates the useful properties of the two. Among other benefits, EEG-fMRI can contribute to a better understanding of brain connectivity and networks. This review lays its focus on the methodologies applied in performing EEG-fMRI studies, namely techniques used for the recording of EEG inside the scanner, artifact removal, and statistical analysis of the fMRI signal. We will investigate simultaneous resting-state and task-based EEG-fMRI studies and discuss their clinical and technological perspectives. Moreover, it is established that the brain regions affected by a task-based neural activity might not be limited to the regions in which they have been initiated. Advanced methods can help reveal the regions responsible for or affected by a developed neural network. Therefore, we have also looked into studies related to characterization of structure and dynamics of brain networks. The reviewed literature suggests that EEG-fMRI can provide valuable complementary information about brain neural networks and functions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".