Sleep Neuroimaging: past research, present challenges and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep research has evolved considerably since the first sleep electroencephalography (EEG) recordings in the 1930s and the discovery of well-distinguishable sleep stages in the 1950s. While electrophysiological recordings have been used to describe the sleeping brain in much detail, since the 1990s neuroimaging techniques are applied to uncover the brain organization and functional connectivity of human sleep with greater spatial resolution. The combination of EEG with different neuroimaging modalities such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET), structural MRI (sMRI) and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) impose several challenges for sleep studies. For instance, difficulties maintaining and consolidating sleep in an unfamiliar and restricted environment, scanner-related distortions with physiological artifacts may contaminate polysomnography recordings, and the necessity to account for all physiological changes throughout the sleep cycles to better data interpretability. Here, we review the field of sleep neuroimaging in healthy non-sleep-deprived populations, from early findings to more recent developments, discuss the challenges of applying concurrent EEG and imaging techniques to sleep, and possible future directions the field will greatly benefit from.
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 | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".