Functional connectivity is dominated by aperiodic, rather than oscillatory, coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Functional connectivity has attracted significant interest in the identification of specific circuits underlying brain (dys-)function. Classical analyses to estimate functional connectivity (i.e., filtering electrophysiological signals in canonical frequency bands and using connectivity metrics) assume that these reflect oscillatory networks. However, this approach conflates non-oscillatory, aperiodic neural activity with oscillations; raising the possibility that these functional networks may reflect aperiodic rather than oscillatory activity. Here, we provide the first study quantifying, in two different human electroencephalography (EEG) databases, the contribution of aperiodic activity on reconstructed oscillatory functional networks in resting state. We found that more than 99% of delta, theta, and gamma functional networks, more than 90% of beta functional networks and between 23 and 55% of alpha functional networks were actually driven by aperiodic activity. While there is no universal consensus on how to identify and quantify neural oscillations, our results demonstrate that oscillatory functional networks are drastically sparser than commonly assumed. These findings suggest that most functional connectivity studies focusing on resting state actually reflect aperiodic networks instead of oscillations-based networks. We highly recommend that oscillatory network analyses first check the presence of aperiodicity-unbiased neural oscillations before estimating their statistical coupling to strengthen the robustness, interpretability, and reproducibility of functional connectivity studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".