Using Information Geometry to Characterize Higher-Order Interactions in EEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In neuroscience, methods from information geometry (IG) have been successfully applied in the modelling of binary vectors from spike train data, using the orthogonal decomposition of the Kullback-Leibler divergence and mutual information to isolate different orders of interaction between neurons. While spike train data is well-approximated with a binary model, here we apply these IG methods to data from electroencephalography (EEG), a continuous signal requiring appropriate discretization strategies. We developed and compared three different binarization methods and used them to identify third-order interactions in an experiment involving imagined motor movements. The statistical significance of these interactions was assessed using phase-randomized surrogate data that eliminated higher-order dependencies while preserving the spectral characteristics of the original signals. We validated our approach by implementing known second- and third-order dependencies in a forward model and quantified information attenuation at different steps of the analysis. This revealed that the greatest loss in information occurred when going from the idealized binary case to enforcing these dependencies using oscillatory signals. When applied to the real EEG dataset, our analysis detected statistically significant third-order interactions during the task condition despite the relatively sparse data (45 trials per condition). This work demonstrates that IG methods can successfully extract genuine higher-order dependencies from continuous neural recordings when paired with appropriate binarization schemes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".