MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312129462 · doi:10.1038/s42003-022-04297-6

Beyond noise to function: reframing the global brain activity and its dynamic topography

2022· review· en· W4312129462 on OpenAlexafffund
Jianfeng Zhang, Georg Northoff

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeShenzhen-Hong Kong Institute of Brain ScienceShenzhen UniversityHangzhou Normal UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaEuropean Commission
KeywordsCognitive reframingNoise (video)SIGNAL (programming language)NeuroscienceBrain activity and meditationBrain functionFunction (biology)ArousalPsychologyComputer scienceCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyElectroencephalographyArtificial intelligenceBiologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How global and local activity interact with each other is a common question in complex systems like climate and economy. Analogously, the brain too displays 'global' activity that interacts with local-regional activity and modulates behavior. The brain's global activity, investigated as global signal in fMRI, so far, has mainly been conceived as non-neuronal noise. We here review the findings from healthy and clinical populations to demonstrate the neural basis and functions of global signal to brain and behavior. We show that global signal (i) is closely coupled with physiological signals and modulates the arousal level; and (ii) organizes an elaborated dynamic topography and coordinates the different forms of cognition. We also postulate a Dual-Layer Model including both background and surface layers. Together, the latest evidence strongly suggests the need to go beyond the view of global signal as noise by embracing a dual-layer model with background and surface layer.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207