Reliable Acquisition of Electroencephalography Data during Simultaneous Electroencephalography and Functional MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simultaneous electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), EEG-fMRI, combines the complementary properties of scalp EEG (good temporal resolution) and fMRI (good spatial resolution) to measure neuronal activity during an electrographic event, through hemodynamic responses known as blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) changes. It is a non-invasive research tool that is utilized in neuroscience research and is highly beneficial to the clinical community, especially for the management of neurological diseases, provided that proper equipment and protocols are administered during data acquisition. Although recording EEG-fMRI is apparently straightforward, the correct preparation, especially in placing and securing the electrodes, is not only important for safety but is also critical in ensuring the reliability and analyzability of the EEG data obtained. This is also the most experience-demanding part of the preparation. To address these issues, a straightforward protocol that ensures data quality was developed. This article provides a step-by-step guide for acquiring reliable EEG data during EEG-fMRI using this protocol that utilizes readily available medical products. The presented protocol can be adapted to different applications of EEG-fMRI in research and clinical settings, and may be beneficial to both inexperienced and expert operators.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".