On the Reliability of the EEG Microstate Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EEG microstates represent functional brain networks observable in resting EEG recordings that remain stable for 40-120ms before rapidly switching into another network. It is assumed that microstate characteristics (i.e., durations, occurrences, percentage coverage, and transitions) may serve as neural markers of mental and neurological disorders and psychosocial traits. However, robust data on their retest-reliability are needed to provide the basis for this assumption. Furthermore, researchers currently use different methodological approaches that need to be compared regarding their consistency and suitability to produce reliable results. Based on an extensive dataset largely representative of western societies (2 days with two resting EEG measures each; day one: n = 583; day two: n = 542) we found good to excellent short-term retest-reliability of microstate durations, occurrences, and coverages (average ICCs = 0.874-0.920). There was good overall long-term retest-reliability of these microstate characteristics (average ICCs = 0.671-0.852), even when the interval between measures was longer than half a year, supporting the longstanding notion that microstate durations, occurrences, and coverages represent stable neural traits. Findings were robust across different EEG systems (64 vs. 30 electrodes), recording lengths (3 vs. 2 min), and cognitive states (before vs. after experiment). However, we found poor retest-reliability of transitions. There was good to excellent consistency of microstate characteristics across clustering procedures (except for transitions), and both procedures produced reliable results. Grand-mean fitting yielded more reliable results compared to individual fitting. Overall, these findings provide robust evidence for the reliability of the microstate approach.
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 | 0.089 | 0.250 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".