Splitting of the magnetic encephalogram into «brain» and «non-brain» physiological signals based on the joint analysis of frequency-pattern functional tomograms and magnetic resonance images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers the problem of dividing the encephalography data into two time series, that generated by the brain and that generated by other electrical sources located in the human head. The magnetic encephalograms and magnetic resonance images of the head were recorded in the Center for Neuromagnetism at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Data obtained at McGill University and Montreal University were also used. Recordings were made in a magnetically shielded room and the gradiometers were designed to suppress external noise, making it possible to eliminate them from the data analysis. Magnetic encephalograms were analyzed by the method of functional tomography, based on the Fourier transform and on the solution of inverse problem for all frequencies. In this method, one spatial position is assigned to each frequency component. Magnetic resonance images of the head were evaluated to annotate the space to be included in the analysis. The included space was divided into two parts: «brain» and «non-brain». The frequency components were classified by the feature of their inclusion in one or the other part. The set of frequencies, designated as «brain», represented the partial spectrum of the brain signal, while the set of frequencies designated as «non-brain», represented the partial spectrum of the physiological noise produced by the head. Both partial spectra shared the same frequency band. From the partial spectra, a time series of the «brain» area signal and «non-brain» area head noise were reconstructed. Summary spectral power of the signal was found to be ten times greater than the noise. The proposed method makes it possible to analyze in detail both the signal and the noise components of the encephalogram and to filter the magnetic encephalogram.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".