Neural field modeling and analysis of consciousness states in the brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding the neural correlates of consciousness remains a central challenge in neuroscience. In this study, we explore the potential of neural field theory (NFT) as a computational framework for representing consciousness states. While prior research has validated NFT’s capacity to differentiate between normal and pathological states of consciousness, the relationship of its parameters to the representation of consciousness states remains unclear. Here, we fitted a corticothalamic NFT model to the electroencephalography (EEG) data collected from healthy individuals and patients with disorders of consciousness. We then comprehensively explored the correlations between the fitted NFT parameters and features extracted from both experimental and simulated EEG data across various states of consciousness. The identified correlations not only highlight the model’s ability to differentiate between healthy and impaired states of consciousness, but also shed light on the physiological bases of these states, pinpointing potential biomarkers. Our results provide valuable insights into how consciousness levels are represented within the NFT framework and into the dynamics of brain activity across normal and pathological states of consciousness. This underscores the potential of NFT as a useful tool for consciousness research, facilitating in-silico experimentation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".