ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Scalp EEG predicts intracranial brain activity in humans.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Topological resilience of EEG-based functional networks during virtual reality-induced emotional states.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inferring deep brain activity from noninvasive scalp recordings remains a fundamental challenge in neuroscience. Here, we analyzed concurrent scalp and intracranial recordings from 1918 electrode contacts across 20 patients affected by drug-resistant epilepsy undergoing intracranial depth electrode monitoring for pre-surgical evaluation to establish predictive relationships between surface and deep brain signals. Using regularized and cross-validated linear regression within subjects, we demonstrate that scalp recordings can predict spontaneous intracranial activity, with accuracy varying by region, depth, and frequency. Low-frequency signals (<12 Hz) were most predictable, with our models explaining approximately 10% of intracranial signal variance across contacts. Prediction accuracy decreased with contact depth, particularly for high-frequency signals. Using Bayesian modeling with leave-one-patient-out cross-validation, we observed generalizable prediction of activity in mesial temporal, prefrontal, and orbitofrontal cortices, explaining 10-12% of low-frequency signal variance. This scalp-to-intracranial mapping derived from spontaneous activity was further validated by its correlation with scalp responses evoked by direct electrical stimulation. These findings support the development of improved inverse models of brain activity and potentially more accurate scalp-based markers of disease and treatment response.
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.