Novel multivariate methods to track frequency shifts of neural oscillations in EEG/MEG recordings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instantaneous and peak frequency changes in neural oscillations have been linked to many perceptual, motor, and cognitive processes. Yet, the majority of such studies have been performed in sensor space and only occasionally in source space. Furthermore, both terms have been used interchangeably in the literature, although they do not reflect the same aspect of neural oscillations. In this paper, we discuss the relation between instantaneous frequency, peak frequency, and local frequency, the latter also known as spectral centroid. Furthermore, we propose and validate three different methods to extract source signals from multichannel data whose (instantaneous, local, or peak) frequency estimate is maximally correlated to an experimental variable of interest. Results show that the local frequency might be a better estimate of frequency variability than instantaneous frequency under conditions with low signal-to-noise ratio. Additionally, the source separation methods based on local and peak frequency estimates, called LFD and PFD respectively, provide more stable estimates than the decomposition based on instantaneous frequency. In particular, LFD and PFD are able to recover the sources of interest in simulations performed with a realistic head model, providing higher correlations with an experimental variable than multiple linear regression. Finally, we also tested all decomposition methods on real EEG data from a steady-state visual evoked potential paradigm and show that the recovered sources are located in areas similar to those previously reported in other studies, thus providing further validation of the proposed methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".