MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392361628 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299284

Deep EEG source localization via EMD-based fMRI high spatial frequency

2024· article· en· W4392361628 on OpenAlexafffund
Narges Moradi, Bradley G. Goodyear, Roberto C. Sotero

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectroencephalographyEEG-fMRIFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeuroimagingArtificial intelligenceVoxelPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceIndependent component analysisBrain mappingBrain activity and meditationHilbert–Huang transformSpurious relationshipNeuroscienceComputer visionPsychologyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain imaging with a high-spatiotemporal resolution is crucial for accurate brain-function mapping. Electroencephalography (EEG) and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) are two popular neuroimaging modalities with complementary features that record brain function with high temporal and spatial resolution, respectively. One popular non-invasive way to obtain data with both high spatial and temporal resolutions is to combine the fMRI activation map and EEG data to improve the spatial resolution of the EEG source localization. However, using the whole fMRI map may cause spurious results for the EEG source localization, especially for deep brain regions. Considering the head's conductivity, deep regions' sources with low activity are unlikely to be detected by the EEG electrodes at the scalp. In this study, we use fMRI's high spatial-frequency component to identify the local high-intensity activations that are most likely to be captured by the EEG. The 3D Empirical Mode Decomposition (3D-EMD), a data-driven method, is used to decompose the fMRI map into its spatial-frequency components. Different validation measurements for EEG source localization show improved performance for the EEG inverse-modeling informed by the fMRI's high-frequency spatial component compared to the fMRI-informed EEG source-localization methods. The level of improvement varies depending on the voxels' intensity and their distribution. Our experimental results also support this conclusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→