Establishing brain states in neuroimaging data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The definition of a brain state remains elusive, with varying interpretations across different sub-fields of neuroscience-from the level of wakefulness in anaesthesia, to activity of individual neurons, voltage in EEG, and blood flow in fMRI. This lack of consensus presents a significant challenge to the development of accurate models of neural dynamics. However, at the foundation of dynamical systems theory lies a definition of what constitutes the 'state' of a system-i.e., a specification of the system's future. Here, we propose to adopt this definition to establish brain states in neuroimaging timeseries by applying Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM) to low-dimensional embedding of resting and task condition fMRI data. We find that ~90% of subjects in resting conditions are better described by first-order models, whereas ~55% of subjects in task conditions are better described by second-order models. Our work calls into question the status quo of using first-order equations almost exclusively within computational neuroscience and provides a new way of establishing brain states, as well as their associated phase space representations, in neuroimaging datasets.
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 | 0.011 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".