Sleep neuroimaging: Review and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep research has evolved considerably since the first sleep electroencephalography recordings in the 1930s and the discovery of well-distinguishable sleep stages in the 1950s. While electrophysiological recordings have been used to describe the sleeping brain in much detail, since the 1990s neuroimaging techniques have been applied to uncover the brain organization and functional connectivity of human sleep with greater spatial resolution. The combination of electroencephalography with different neuroimaging modalities such as positron emission tomography, structural magnetic resonance imaging and functional magnetic resonance imaging imposes several challenges for sleep studies, for instance, the need to combine polysomnographic recordings to assess sleep stages accurately, difficulties maintaining and consolidating sleep in an unfamiliar and restricted environment, scanner-induced distortions with physiological artefacts that may contaminate polysomnography recordings, and the necessity to account for all physiological changes throughout the sleep cycles to ensure better data interpretability. Here, we review the field of sleep neuroimaging in healthy non-sleep-deprived populations, from early findings to more recent developments. Additionally, we discuss the challenges of applying concurrent electroencephalography and imaging techniques to sleep, which consequently have impacted the sample size and generalizability of studies, and possible future directions for the field.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".