MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385417249 · doi:10.1038/s42003-023-05168-4

Comparative analysis of multifaceted neural effects associated with varying endogenous cognitive load

2023· article· en· W4385417249 on OpenAlexaff
Leisi Pei, Georg Northoff, Guang Ouyang

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersResearch Grants Council, University Grants Committee
KeywordsCognitionComputer scienceDynamics (music)Variation (astronomy)Task (project management)Cognitive neurosciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceCognitive scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary neuroscience has firmly established that mental state variation concurs with changes in neural dynamic activity in a complex way that a one-to-one mapping cannot describe. To explore the scenario of the multifaceted changes in neural dynamics associated with simple mental state variation, we took cognitive load - a common cognitive manipulation in psychology - as a venue to characterize how multiple neural dynamic features are simultaneously altered by the manipulation and how their sensitivity differs. Electroencephalogram was collected from 152 participants performing stimulus-free tasks with different demands. The results show that task demand alters wide-ranging neural dynamic features, including band-specific oscillations across broad frequency bands, scale-free dynamics, and cross-frequency phase-amplitude coupling. The scale-free dynamics outperformed others in indexing cognitive load variation. This study demonstrates a complex relationship between cognitive dynamics and neural dynamics, which points to a necessity to integrate multifaceted neural dynamic features when studying mind-brain relationship in the future.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207