Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41180118›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2025

Using noise to distinguish between system and observer effects in multimodal neuroimaging.

Erik D Fagerholm, Hirokazu Tanaka, Gregory Scott, Robert Leech, Federico E Turkheimer, Peter Zeidman, Karl J Friston, Milan Brázdil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Erik D FagerholmFirst Department of Neurology, St. Anne's University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia.
Hirokazu TanakaFaculty of Information Technology, Tokyo City University, Tokyo, Japan.
Gregory ScottDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Robert LeechDepartment of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Federico E TurkheimerDepartment of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter ZeidmanFunctional Imaging Laboratory, Department of Imaging Neuroscience, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Karl J FristonFunctional Imaging Laboratory, Department of Imaging Neuroscience, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Milan BrázdilFirst Department of Neurology, St. Anne's University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: It has become increasingly common to record brain activity simultaneously at more than one spatiotemporal scale. Here, we address a central question raised by such cross-scale datasets: do they reflect the same underlying dynamics observed in different ways, or different dynamics observed in the same way? In other words, to what extent can variation between modalities be attributed to system-level versus observer-level effects? System-level effects reflect genuine differences in neural dynamics at the resolution sampled by each device. Observer-level effects, by contrast, reflect artefactual differences introduced by the nonlinear transformations each device imposes on the signal. We demonstrate that noise, when incorporated into generative models, can help disentangle these two sources of variation. Methods: We apply this noise-based approach to simultaneously recorded high-frequency broadband signals from macroelectrodes and microwires in the human hippocampus. Results: Most subjects show a complex mixture of system- and observer-level contributions to their time series. However, in one subject, the cross-scale difference is statistically attributable to an observer-level effect-i.e., consistent with the same dynamics at both microwire and macroelectrode scales. Discussion: This study shows that noise can be used in empirical datasets to determine whether cross-scale variation arises from differences in neural dynamics or differences in observer functions.

Indexed as

Bayesian model comparisoncross-scale integrationgenerative modelinghigh-frequency broadband activitymultimodal neuroimagingobserver-system disambiguationstochastic differential equations

Identifiers

PMID41180118
PMCPMC12575338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.