The spatial layout of antagonistic brain regions is explicable based on geometric principles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Brain activity emerges in a dynamic landscape of regional increases and decreases that span the cortex. Increases in activity during a cognitive task are often assumed to reflect the processing of task-relevant information, while reductions can be interpreted as suppression of irrelevant activity to facilitate task goals. Here, we explore the relationship between task-induced increases and decreases in activity from a geometric perspective. Using a technique known as kriging, developed in earth sciences, we examined whether the spatial organisation of brain regions showing positive activity could be predicted based on the spatial layout of regions showing activity decreases (and vice versa). Consistent with this hypothesis we established the spatial distribution of regions showing reductions in activity could predict (i) regions showing task-relevant increases in activity in both groups of humans and single individuals; (ii) patterns of neural activity captured by calcium imaging in mice; and, (iii) showed a high degree of generalisability across task contexts. Our analysis, therefore, establishes that antagonistic relationships between brain regions are topographically determined, a spatial analog for the well documented anti-correlation between brain systems over time. Significance Statement It is well documented that brain activity changes in response to the demands of different situations, although what gives rise to the observed cortical activity patterns remains poorly understood. Using analytic tools from earth sciences, we examined whether the landscape of regional changes in activity emerge from a set of common topographical causes. Using only regions showing decreases in activity, we could predict the landscape of regions showing increases in activity using fMRI in humans and calcium imaging in mice. Our results suggest topographical principles determine the landscape of peaks and valleys in brain activity -- a spatial analog for the well documented anti-correlation between sets of brain regions over time.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".