EEG-Meta-Microstates: Towards a More Objective Use of Resting-State EEG Microstate Findings Across Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, EEG resting-state microstate analysis has evolved from a niche existence to a widely used and well-accepted methodology. The rapidly increasing body of empirical findings started to yield overarching patterns of associations of biological and psychological states and traits with specific microstate classes. However, currently, this cross-referencing among apparently similar microstate classes of different studies is typically done by "eyeballing" of printed template maps by the individual authors, lacking a systematic procedure. To improve the reliability and validity of future findings, we present a tool to systematically collect the actual data of template maps from as many published studies as possible and present them in their entirety as a matrix of spatial similarity. The tool also allows importing novel template maps and systematically extracting the findings associated with specific microstate maps from ongoing or published studies. The tool also allows importing novel template maps and systematically extracting the findings associated with specific microstate maps in the literature. The analysis of 40 included sets of template maps indicated that: (i) there is a high degree of similarity of template maps across studies, (ii) similar template maps were associated with converging empirical findings, and (iii) representative meta-microstates can be extracted from the individual studies. We hope that this tool will be useful in coming to a more comprehensive, objective, and overarching representation of microstate findings.
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 | 0.079 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.048 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".