On variability in local field potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Neuronal coding and decoding would be compromised if neuronal responses were highly variable. Intriguingly, neuronal spike counts (SCs) show a reduction in across-trial variance (ATV) in response to sensory stimulation, when SC variance is normalized by SC mean, that is, when using the Fano factor 1 . Inspired by this seminal finding, ATV has also been studied in electroencephalography (EEG) signals, revealing effects of various stimulus and cognitive factors as well as disease states. Here, we empirically show that outside of evoked potentials, the ATV of the EEG or local field potential (LFP) is very highly correlated to the intra-trial variance (ITV), which corresponds to the well-known power metric. We propose that the LFP power, rather than the raw LFP signal, should be considered with regard to putative changes of its variability. We quantify LFP power variability as the standard deviation of the logarithm of the power ratio between an active and a baseline condition, normalized by the mean of that log(power ratio), that is the coefficient of variation (CV) of the log(power ratio). This CV(log(power ratio)) is reduced for gamma and alpha power when they are enhanced by stimulation, and it is enhanced for alpha power when it is reduced by stimulation. This suggests a potential inverse relation between changes in band-limited power and the corresponding CV. We propose that the CV(log(power ratio)) is a useful metric that can be computed for numerous existing and future LFP, EEG or MEG datasets, which will provide insights into those signals’ frequency-specific variability and how they might be used for neuronal coding and decoding.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".