MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384342623 · doi:10.1007/s10548-023-00988-3

Normative Intercorrelations Between EEG Microstate Characteristics

2023· article· en· W4384342623 on OpenAlexaff
Tobias Kleinert, Kyle Nash, Thomas Koenig, Edmund Wascher

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Topography · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersLeibniz-GemeinschaftLeibniz-Institut für Arbeitsforschung an der TU Dortmund
KeywordsMinistateElectroencephalographyNormativePsychologyDefault mode networkCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceFunctional magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EEG microstates are brief, recurring periods of stable brain activity that reflect the activation of large-scale neural networks. The temporal characteristics of these microstates, including their average duration, number of occurrences, and percentage contribution have been shown to serve as biomarkers of mental and neurological disorders. However, little is known about how microstate characteristics of prototypical network types relate to each other. Normative intercorrelations among these parameters are necessary to help researchers better understand the functions and interactions of underlying networks, interpret and relate results, and generate new hypotheses. Here, we present a systematic analysis of intercorrelations between EEG microstate characteristics in a large sample representative of western working populations (n = 583). Notably, we find that microstate duration is a general characteristic that varies across microstate types. Further, microstate A and B show mutual reinforcement, indicating a relationship between auditory and visual sensory processing at rest. Microstate C appears to play a special role, as it is associated with longer durations of all other microstate types and increased global field power, suggesting a relationship of these parameters with the anterior default mode network. All findings could be confirmed using independent EEG recordings from a retest-session (n = 542).

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain TopographySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207