Mapping Research Trends from 20 Years of Publications in Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to create an all-around insight into the evolutions, status, and global trends of rhythmic auditory stimulation (RAS) research via enhanced bibliometric methods for the 2001-2020 time period. Articles concerning RAS were extracted from the Web of Science database. CiteSpace, Bibliometrix, VOSviewer, and Graphpad Prism were employed to analyze publication patterns and research trends. A total of 586 publications related to RAS between 2001 and 2020 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. The researcher Goswami U. made the greatest contribution to this field. The University of Toronto was the institution that published the most articles. Motor dysfunction, sensory perception, and cognition are the three major domains of RAS research. Neural tracking, working memory, and neural basis may be the latest research frontiers. This study reveals the publication patterns and topic trends of RAS based on the records published between 2001 and 2020. The insights obtained provided useful references for the future research and applications of RAS.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.080 | 0.108 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".