Tuning Minimum-Norm regularization parameters for optimal MEG connectivity estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The accurate characterization of cortical functional connectivity from Magnetoencephalography (MEG) data remains a challenging problem due to the subjective nature of the analysis, which requires several decisions at each step of the analysis pipeline, such as the choice of a source estimation algorithm, a connectivity metric and a cortical parcellation, to name but a few. Recent studies have emphasized the importance of selecting the regularization parameter in minimum norm estimates with caution, as variations in its value can result in significant differences in connectivity estimates. In particular, the amount of regularization that is optimal for MEG source estimation can actually be suboptimal for coherence-based MEG connectivity analysis. In this study, we expand upon previous work by examining a broader range of commonly used connectivity metrics, including the imaginary part of coherence, corrected imaginary part of Phase Locking Value, and weighted Phase Lag Index, within a larger and more realistic simulation scenario. Our results show that the best estimate of connectivity is achieved using a regularization parameter that is 1 or 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the one that yields the best source estimation. This remarkable difference may imply that previous work assessing source-space connectivity using minimum-norm may have benefited from using less regularization, as this may have helped reduce false positives. Importantly, we provide the code for MEG data simulation and analysis, offering the research community a valuable open source tool for informed selections of the regularization parameter when using minimum-norm for source space connectivity analyses. Highlights The regularization parameter of the Minimum Norm Estimate of neural activity impacts connectivity estimation We study empirically the optimal parameter for connectivity estimation using realistic synthetic datasets We find the optimal parameter for connectivity estimation is systematically smaller than the optimal parameter for source imaging; different connectivity metrics yield the same result Code and data are available open source.
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".