ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
A comparison of uni- and multi-variate methods for identifying brain networks activated by cognitive tasks using intracranial EEG.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- EEG Based Decoding of the Perception and Regulation of Taboo Words.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Studying memory processes at different levels with simultaneous depth and surface EEG recordings.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive tasks are commonly used to identify brain networks involved in the underlying cognitive process. However, inferring the brain networks from intracranial EEG data presents several challenges related to the sparse spatial sampling of the brain and the high variability of the EEG trace due to concurrent brain processes. In this manuscript, we use a well-known facial emotion recognition task to compare three different ways of analyzing the contrasts between task conditions: permutation cluster tests, machine learning (ML) classifiers, and a searchlight implementation of multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) for intracranial sparse data recorded from 13 patients undergoing presurgical evaluation for drug-resistant epilepsy. Using all three methods, we aim at highlighting the brain structures with significant contrast between conditions. In the absence of ground truth, we use the scientific literature to validate our results. The comparison of the three methods' results shows moderate agreement, measured by the Jaccard coefficient, between the permutation cluster tests and the machine learning [0.33 and 0.52 for the left (LH) and right (RH) hemispheres], and 0.44 and 0.37 for the LH and RH between the permutation cluster tests and MVPA. The agreement between ML and MVPA is higher: 0.65 for the LH and 0.62 for the RH. To put these results in context, we performed a brief review of the literature and we discuss how each brain structure's involvement in the facial emotion recognition task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.