Further characterisation of late somatosensory evoked potentials using electroencephalogram and magnetoencephalogram source imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beside the well-documented involvement of secondary somatosensory area, the cortical network underlying late somatosensory evoked potentials (P60/N60 and P100/N100) is still unknown. Electroencephalogram and magnetoencephalogram source imaging were performed to further investigate the origin of the brain cortical areas involved in late somatosensory evoked potentials, using sensory inputs of different strengths and by testing the correlation between cortical sources. Simultaneous high-density electroencephalograms and magnetoencephalograms were performed in 19 participants, and electrical stimulation was applied to the median nerve (wrist level) at intensity between 1.5 and 9 times the perceptual threshold. Source imaging was undertaken to map the stimulus-induced brain cortical activity according to each individual brain magnetic resonance imaging, during three windows of analysis covering early and late somatosensory evoked potentials. Results for P60/N60 and P100/N100 were compared with those for P20/N20 (early response). According to literature, maximal activity during P20/N20 was found in central sulcus contralateral to stimulation site. During P60/N60 and P100/N100, activity was observed in contralateral primary sensorimotor area, secondary somatosensory area (on both hemispheres) and premotor and multisensory associative cortices. Late responses exhibited similar characteristics but different from P20/N20, and no significant correlation was found between early and late generated activities. Specific clusters of cortical activities were activated with specific input/output relationships underlying early and late somatosensory evoked potentials. Cortical networks, partly common to and distinct from early somatosensory responses, contribute to late responses, all participating in the complex somatosensory brain processing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".