Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 39 references

A Hodge-FAST Framework for High-Resolution Dynamic Functional Connectivity Analysis of Higher Order Interactions in EEG Signals

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces Hodge-FAST, which breaks moment-by-moment EEG connectivity into gradient, curl, and harmonic flows and reports reproducible group differences between Alzheimer's-related MCI patients and controls that pairwise edge…

desk verdict Nice engineering, but the Hodge 'higher-order flow' reading is mathematically shaky on positive weights, and the group tests are not independent of the mask. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00249 v2 pith:WZ7KJGN5 submitted 2025-02-01 eess.SP

Om Roy , Yashar Moshfeghi , Jason Smith , Agustin Ibanez , Mario A.Parra , Keith M. Smith This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords dynamicfunctionalconnectivityHodgedecompositionhigher-orderinteractionsEEGsignalprocessingFASTmildcognitiveimpairmenttopologicaldataanalysisvisualshort-termmemorybinding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces a framework, Hodge-FAST, that uses Hodge decomposition to split instantaneous EEG connectivity tensors into three orthogonal components—gradient, curl, and harmonic—so that interactions among triangles and loops can be studied at the millisecond scale rather than only in static networks. The authors claim this is the first method to capture such higher-dimensional interactions at high temporal resolution in noisy EEG recordings, and they apply it to two independent cohorts of patients with Alzheimer's-related mild cognitive impairment performing a visual short-term memory binding task. They report significant, FDR-corrected differences between patients and controls concentrated in time windows previously tied to the LPP and P300 event-related potentials, with different components implicated in the familial and sporadic cohorts. If the framework works as claimed, higher-order connectivity dynamics could serve as reproducible biomarkers for early Alzheimer's disease and open EEG recordings to topological data analysis that pairwise graph methods cannot provide.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the temporal Hodge decomposition of the sparsified FAST connectivity tensor. Boundary operators $B_p$ build the Hodge Laplacian $\Delta_p = B_p^\top B_p + B_{p+1}B_{p+1}^\top$, and the edge flow $\bar{\Theta}_{\mathrm{FAST}}(t)$ is projected by least squares onto the gradient plane and the curl plane, with the harmonic component as the residual. The FAST matrix $C_{\mathrm{FAST}}$, the average of absolute Pearson correlations over all participants, supplies the mask $M$ that keeps only the top $K$th percentile of global connections, and a sliding window of size $W$ averages the filtered instantaneous tensors before decomposition.

What would settle it

Recompute the mask $M$ using only control participants, or via leave-one-participant-out, and repeat the entire Hodge-FAST pipeline; if the FDR-significant curl and harmonic differences in the 0.8–1.0 s window disappear or change sign, the reported group effects depend on in-sample sparsification. A permutation test that shuffles patient and control labels and reruns the full pipeline, counting how often equally extreme component differences appear, would provide the same check in a single number.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that after filtering instantaneous connectivity by the long-term global FAST correlation structure and sparsifying to the top percentile of connections, the resulting edge-flow tensor admits a Hodge decomposition whose temporal traces show reproducible patient-control differences in both a familial and a sporadic MCI cohort. The familial cohort shows FDR-significant curl-component increases in the 0.8–1.0 s LPP window in delta and theta bands, while the sporadic cohort shows harmonic-component changes in the same window, and both cohorts show component-specific effects in the P300 range. These differences are invisible to pairwise edge-level analysis alone, which is the paper's core claim: higher-order interactions are not merely present in transient EEG connectivity but carry task-relevant, disease-relevant signal.

Load-bearing premise

The sparsifying mask $M$ is built from the long-term connectivity averaged over all participants, and the same participants are then used for the patient-control significance tests, so the connection filter and the statistical comparison share the same data with no cross-validation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • EEG dynamic functional connectivity can be studied at the level of triangles and loops at millisecond resolution, not just through static whole-network summaries.
  • The three orthogonal components provide separable readouts—gradient flow for node-level integration, curl flow for triangle-bound rotational dynamics, and harmonic flow for loop-like structures—so a disease effect can be localized to a specific geometric flow.
  • Reproducible patient-control differences in LPP and P300 windows across two independent cohorts and two recording systems suggest that component-specific higher-order measures are candidates for early Alzheimer's biomarkers.
  • Because the FAST filter avoids eigen-decomposition, the framework stays computationally light enough for high-resolution temporal analysis of high-density EEG.
  • The method generalizes beyond EEG to any time-resolved network signal where edge flows over simplicial complexes are meaningful.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A key open question the paper leaves implicit is whether the sparsifying mask $M$, computed from the same participants later used in the group tests, biases the comparisons; a split-half or leave-one-out re-estimation of $M$ would settle whether the reported effects survive an in-sample selection procedure.
  • The same pipeline could be applied to source-reconstructed EEG or MEG to test whether triangle- and loop-level flows reflect cortical generator geometry rather than scalp volume-conduction artefacts.
  • Because the framework yields per-window gradient, curl, and harmonic traces, these traces could be used as features for single-subject classification or continuous cognitive-state tracking, which the current group-level statistical design does not address.
  • The dissociation between cohorts (curl in MCI-FAM versus harmonic and gradient in MCI-SPO in the LPP window) suggests a testable hypothesis about distinct network pathologies, but the paper does not yet assess whether this dissociation is statistically robust beyond the reported windows.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a dynamic functional connectivity (DFC) analysis framework that combines Filtered Average Short-Term (FAST) functional connectivity with Hodge decomposition. It sparsifies the instantaneous connectivity tensor using a mask derived from long-term averaged correlations, then decomposes the resulting edge flow into gradient, curl, and harmonic components. The framework is applied to two independent EEG datasets from MCI patients and controls performing a visual short-term memory binding task, and significant group differences are reported in specific time windows linked to the LPP and P300 ERPs. The paper claims this is the first framework to capture higher-dimensional interaction dynamics at high temporal resolution in noisy EEG.

Significance. If the methodological assumptions are valid, this framework would offer a computationally efficient way to extend DFC analysis to higher-order (triangle- and loop-level) structures, with potential applications in biomarker discovery for prodromal Alzheimer's disease. The use of two independent datasets, non-parametric tests, and effect sizes is a strength, as is the integration of existing tools (FAST FC and Hodge decomposition) into a dynamic setting. However, the geometric interpretation of the Hodge components on non-negative connectivity weights, the data-derived mask selection, the lack of a pairwise baseline, and considerable cross-dataset parameter differences currently prevent the central claims from being accepted at face value.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section II-B, Eqs. (2)-(3); Section III] The Hodge components are interpreted as evidence of directed higher-order flow (e.g., "rotational behaviors", "dysregulation in interactions among triangles"), but the connectivity tensor is non-negative by construction in both node functions: Eq. (2) uses squared differences and Eq. (3) uses absolute values. For a single triangle with equal positive edge weights, the entire edge vector is orthogonal to im(delta_0) and therefore lies in the curl subspace, despite being a symmetric co-activation pattern with no directed circulation. Consequently, the curl component measures any edge pattern orthogonal to node potentials, not necessarily rotational flow. The authors must either supply an oriented, signed connectivity tensor (e.g., raw correlations with an explicit edge orientation) or reinterpret the components as algebraic projections rather than directed flows; otherwise the claimed higher-order interpretation is unsupported.
  2. [Section II-B (mask M); Section III] The sparsification mask M is computed from CFAST, the long-term connectivity averaged over all participants, and the same participants are then used for the group-level Wilcoxon tests on the masked tensors. This is a double-dipping/selection-bias problem: the filter and the statistical test share the same data, which can inflate group differences. The paper reports no split-half, leave-one-out, or permutation-based evaluation of the mask's independence. To support the reproducibility claim, the authors should validate the results using a mask estimated from a training subset (or a null distribution) and then tested on held-out participants.
  3. [Abstract; Section V] The abstract and conclusion claim that the framework reveals "significant temporal differences related to higher-order interactions that a pairwise analysis on its own does not implicate." However, no pairwise-only baseline is shown anywhere in the manuscript. Without a comparison against standard pairwise DFC on the same data (e.g., the FAST connectivity tensor without Hodge decomposition, or edge-level statistics), the claimed added value over pairwise methods is unsubstantiated.
  4. [Tables I and II; Section III] The two datasets are processed with different node functions (local Dirichlet energy for MCI-FAM vs. instantaneous correlation for MCI-SPO), different sparsity thresholds (top 5% vs. top 1%), and different numbers of windows (10 vs. 15). The manuscript argues that the findings are reproducible across independent cohorts, but the differences in results could be driven by these processing choices rather than by a shared neurophysiological effect. The authors should justify the parameter selection or run the identical pipeline on both datasets before claiming reproducibility.
  5. [Section II-B] The construction of the simplicial complex is underspecified. The boundary operator B_p is defined generically, but the paper does not state how triangles and higher-order simplices are obtained from the sparsified graph (e.g., clique complex, flag complex, or some other rule), nor the edge orientation convention used in the coboundary maps. These details are needed for reproducibility and for interpreting the geometric meaning of the decomposition.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; Section I] The claim of being "the first framework capable of detecting higher-order dynamic interactions" should be tempered, given that static Hodge decompositions of brain networks already exist [24,25]. A formulation such as "to our knowledge, the first application to dynamic EEG at high temporal resolution" would be more defensible.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The text describes CFAST as the "modulus of the Pearson correlation coefficient," but the formula in Eq. (1) does not contain an absolute value. This inconsistency should be resolved, as it affects both the value and the sign of the filtering weights.
  3. [Tables I and II; Figure 2] The window size W is never reported, although the tables list the number of windows. Additionally, Figure 2's caption says "top 10% of the strongest global connections" while Table 1 states "Sparsity: Top 5%" for MCI-FAM; the two numbers should be reconciled.
  4. [Section II-B] The definition of CFAST_K as the value "above which only the top K-th percentile of connections are retained" is ambiguous. It should be clarified whether K denotes the percentage of retained edges (e.g., K=5 means keeping the top 5%) or a percentile rank.
  5. [Section II-B] In the definition of the boundary operator, the notation uses both k and p inconsistently ("Bpij = 1 if the k-simplex is part of a (k+1)-simplex"). Using a consistent index (e.g., p for the dimension of the simplex) would improve readability.
  6. [Section III] The description of FDR correction is vague: it is unclear whether it is applied separately for each component, jointly across all windows per component, or across all tests combined. Please specify the exact correction procedure, including the total number of tests.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Hodge-FAST derivation is explicit and self-contained; the data-driven mask is a statistical selection-bias concern, not an equivalence-by-construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is mathematically explicit and does not reduce to its inputs. CFAST is defined in Eq. (1) as an average over participants; ΘFAST is defined in Eqs. (2) and (3) from the signals and CFAST; the mask M is a percentile threshold on CFAST; and the Hodge components are least-squares projections of the masked tensor. Each step is a deterministic function of the previous one, and the reported group differences are computed from the projected tensors, not from the mask or CFAST alone. The self-citations [1] and [2] support the FAST filter's noise robustness, but the FAST equations are restated in the paper and the Hodge extension is new, so the central claim does not reduce to a self-citation chain. The mask M is computed from all participants and then used for the same participants' group tests, which creates a statistical selection-bias risk (Section II-B vs Section III), but it does not make the reported p-values equivalent to the input by construction: the test statistics could be null even with the mask, and the mask is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The skeptic's concern about non-negative weights producing large curl components is a validity/interpretation question about Hodge decomposition on absolute-value transforms, not a circularity in the derivation. Accordingly, no circular steps are identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several under-specified implementation choices: the sparsity percentile, the window size, the node function, and the edge orientation. The most concerning choice is the data-driven mask built from the full sample and then used for within-sample group testing, which introduces selection bias.

free parameters (3)
  • Sparsity threshold K = top 5% (MCI-FAM), top 1% (MCI-SPO)
    Chosen per dataset; the number of surviving edges determines which triangles and loops can appear, directly shaping the Hodge components and the test results.
  • Sliding window size W = not stated; 10 windows for MCI-FAM, 15 for MCI-SPO
    Window length controls temporal resolution and the number of observations in the group tests; no justification is given.
  • Node function = local Dirichlet energy for MCI-FAM, instantaneous correlation for MCI-SPO
    The choice of Eq. (2) vs Eq. (3) changes the meaning of the connectivity tensor and differs between the two datasets, complicating cross-dataset comparisons.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Hodge decomposition of an edge flow requires an arbitrary orientation assigned to each edge of the simplicial complex.
    The paper does not specify the orientation convention used for the boundary operators, which is required to compute gradient and curl components.
  • domain assumption The FAST global average over all participants yields a stable filter that removes noise while preserving signal.
    This is inherited from prior work [1] and is assumed valid for these EEG recordings without further validation here.
  • ad hoc to paper The top K percentile of CFAST identifies the same globally relevant connections for both patients and controls.
    The group comparison is performed on connections selected from a pooled average, an assumption that can bias results if group differences alter the global connectivity ranking.
  • ad hoc to paper The simplicial complex is built as a flag or clique complex from the sparsified graph.
    The paper mentions triangles and loops but does not define how higher-order simplices are constructed from the thresholded connections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hodge-FAST Framework for High-Resolution Dynamic Functional Connectivity Analysis of Higher Order Interactions in EEG Signals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WZ7KJGN5

@misc{pith2026250200249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hodge-FAST Framework for High-Resolution Dynamic Functional Connectivity Analysis of Higher Order Interactions in EEG Signals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WZ7KJGN5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00249}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel framework that integrates Hodge decomposition with Filtered Average Short-Term (FAST) functional connectivity to analyze dynamic functional connectivity (DFC) in EEG signals. This method leverages graph-based topology and simplicial analysis to explore transient connectivity patterns at multiple scales, addressing noise, sparsity, and computational efficiency. The temporal EEG data are first sparsified by keeping only the most globally important connections, instantaneous connectivity at these connections is then filtered by global long-term stable correlations. This tensor is then decomposed into three orthogonal components to study signal flows over higher-order structures such as triangle and loop structures. Our analysis of Alzheimer-related MCI patients show significant temporal differences related to higher-order interactions that a pairwise analysis on its own does not implicate. This allows us for the first time to capture higher-dimensional interactions at high temporal resolution in noisy EEG signal recordings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00249 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A simplified visual representation of the Hodge decomposition of edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average edge flows for the top 10 % of the strongest global connections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Parra, Keith M

    Om Roy, Yashar Moshfeghi, Agustin Ibanez, Francisco Lopera, Mario A. Parra, Keith M. Smith; FAST functional connectivity implicates P300 connectivity in working memory deficits in Alzheimer’s disease. Network Neuroscience 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    in Complex Networks 2023: The 12th International conference on complex networks and their applications

    Roy, O, Moshfeghi, Y , Ibanez, A, Lopera, F, Parra, MA and Smith, KM 2023, Robust, high temporal-resolution EEG functional connectivity detects increased connectivity coinciding with P300 in visual short-term memory binding in both familial and sporadic prodromal Alzheimer’s Disease. in Complex Networks 2023: The 12th International conference on complex n...

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    M., Starr, J

    Smith, K. M., Starr, J. M., Escudero, J., Ib ´a˜nez, A., and Parra, M. A. (2022). Abnormal functional hierarchies of EEG networks in familial and sporadic prodromal Alzheimer’s disease during visual short-term memory binding. Frontiers in Neuroimaging, 1, 883968. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnimg.2022.883968,

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Network neuroscience

    Bassett, D., Sporns, O. Network neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 20, 353–364 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4502

    doi:10.1038/nn.4502 2017

  5. [5]

    Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems

    Bullmore, E., Sporns, O. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nat Rev Neurosci 10, 186–198 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2575

    doi:10.1038/nrn2575 2009

  6. [6]

    Santoro, A., Battiston, F., Lucas, M. et al. Higher-order connectomics of human brain function reveals local topological signatures of task decoding, individual identification, and behavior. Nat Commun 15, 10244 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-54472-y

    doi:10.1038/s41467-024-54472-y 2024

  7. [7]

    Dynamic functional connectivity: promise, issues, and interpretations

    Hutchison RM, Womelsdorf T, Allen EA, Bandettini PA, Calhoun VD, Corbetta M, Della Penna S, Duyn JH, Glover GH, Gonzalez-Castillo J, Handwerker DA, Keilholz S, Kiviniemi V , Leopold DA, de Pasquale F, Sporns O, Walter M, Chang C. Dynamic functional connectivity: promise, issues, and interpretations. Neuroimage. 2013 Oct 15;80:360-

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Peraza, Michael Firbank, Alan J

    Julia Schumacher, Luis R. Peraza, Michael Firbank, Alan J. Thomas, Marcus Kaiser, Peter Gallagher, John T. O’Brien, Andrew M. Blamire, John-Paul Taylor,Dynamic functional connectivity changes in dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer’s disease,NeuroImage: Clinical,V olume 22,2019,101812,ISSN 2213- 1582,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101812

    work page arXiv 2019

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Smith, K., Ricaud, B., Shahid, N. et al. Locating Temporal Functional Dynamics of Visual Short-Term Memory Binding us- ing Graph Modular Dirichlet Energy. Sci Rep 7, 42013 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42013

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Klimesch, W. (1999). EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: A review and analysis. Brain Research Re- views, 29(2–3), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-0173(98)00056- 3, [PubMed]

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    Mammone, N., De Salvo, S., Bonanno, L., Ieracitano, C., Marino, S., Marra, A., et al. (2018). Brain network analysis of compressive sensed high-density EEG signals in AD and MCI subjects. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inform. 15, 527–536. doi: 10.1109/TII.2018.286843

    2018

  4. [12]

    C., Campolo, M., Labate, D., Morabito, G., Bonanno, L., Bramanti, A., et al

    Morabito, F. C., Campolo, M., Labate, D., Morabito, G., Bonanno, L., Bramanti, A., et al. (2015). A longitudinal EEG study of Alzheimer’s disease progression based on a complex network approach. Int. J. Neural Syst. 25:1550005. doi: 10.1142/s0129065715500057

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Ortega, A., Frossard, P., Kova ˇcevi´c, J., Moura, J. M. F.., and Vandergheynst, P. (2018). Graph signal processing: Overview, chal- lenges, and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 106(5), 808–828. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2018.2820126

    2018

  6. [14]

    and Michel, B., 2021

    Chazal, F. and Michel, B., 2021. An introduction to topological data analysis: fundamental and practical aspects for data scientists. Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 4, p.667963

    2021

  7. [15]

    The impor- tance of the whole: topological data analysis for the network neurosci- entist,

    A.E. Sizemore, J.E. Phillips, R. Ghrist, and D. S. Bassett, “The impor- tance of the whole: topological data analysis for the network neurosci- entist,” Network Neuroscience, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 656–673, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Exact topological inference of the resting-state brain networks in twins,

    M.K. Chung, H. Lee, A. DiChristofano, H. Ombao, and V . Solo, “Exact topological inference of the resting-state brain networks in twins,” Network Neuroscience, vol. 3, pp. 674–694, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    ”Characterizing EEG signals of meditative states using persistent ho- mology and Hodge spectral entropy.” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 89 (2024): 105779

    Gupta, Kurusetti Vinay, Jyotiranjan Beuria, and Laxmidhar Behera. ”Characterizing EEG signals of meditative states using persistent ho- mology and Hodge spectral entropy.” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 89 (2024): 105779

    2024

  10. [18]

    Gaurav, H

    K. Gaurav, H. Jain and T. K. Reddy, ”Characterizing neural activity from EEG signals during game interaction using persistent homology,” 2024 15th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), Kamand, India, 2024, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.11...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Neurophysiological assessment of image quality from EEG using persis- tent homology of brain network

    Liu, C., Ma, X., Wang, J., Zhang, J., Zhang, H., Xie, S., et al. (2021). “Neurophysiological assessment of image quality from EEG using persis- tent homology of brain network” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME). (New York, NY , USA: IEEE), 1–6

    2021

  12. [20]

    Statistical persistent homology of brain signals

    Wang, Y ., Ombao, H., and Chung, M. K. (2019). “Statistical persistent homology of brain signals” in 2019 ICASSP 2019–2019 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (IEEE), 1125–1129

    2019

  13. [21]

    Persistent brain network homology from the perspective of dendrogram,

    H. Lee, H. Kang, M.K. Chung, B.-N. Kim, and D.S Lee,“Persistent brain network homology from the perspective of dendrogram,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 31, pp. 2267–2277, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Topological signal processing over simplicial complexes,

    S. Barbarossa and S. Sardellitti, “Topological signal processing over simplicial complexes,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 68, pp. 2992–3007, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Hodge Laplacians on graphs,

    L.H. Lim, “Hodge Laplacians on graphs,” SIAM Review, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 685–715, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    D. V . Anand and M. K. Chung, ”Hodge Laplacian of Brain Networks,” in IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1563-1573, May 2023, doi: 10.1109/TMI.2022.3233876

    2023

  17. [25]

    Hodge-Decomposition of Brain Networks

    Anand, D. Vijay et al. “Hodge-Decomposition of Brain Networks.” 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) (2022): 1-5

    2022

  18. [26]

    Smith, L

    K. Smith, L. Spyrou and J. Escudero, ”Graph-Variate Signal Analysis,” in IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 293-305, 15 Jan.15, 2019, doi: 10.1109/TSP.2018.2881658

    2019

  19. [27]

    A., Muniz-Terrera, G., Danso, S

    Parra, M. A., Muniz-Terrera, G., Danso, S. O., Ritchie, K., and Ritchie, C. W. (2021). Memory assessment and dementia risk in the PREVENT study. Alzheimer’s and Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Asso- ciation, 17(S6), e055104. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.055104

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Trujillo, N., Flores, F., Garc ´ıa, A

    Pietto, M., Parra, M. A., Trujillo, N., Flores, F., Garc ´ıa, A. M., Bustin, J., . . . Baez, S. (2016). Behavioral and electrophysiological correlates of memory binding deficits in patients at different risk levels for Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 53(4)...

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Jaramillo- Elorza, M

    Acosta-Baena, N., Sepulveda-Falla, D., Lopera-G ´omez, C. M., Jaramillo- Elorza, M. C., Moreno, S., Aguirre-Acevedo, D. C., . . . Lopera, F. (2011). Pre-dementia clinical stages in presenilin 1 E280A familial early-onset Alzheimer’s disease: A retrospective cohort study. Lance...

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Mikulan, E., Trujillo, N., Della Sala, S., Lopera, F., Manes, F.,

    Parra, M. A., Mikulan, E., Trujillo, N., Della Sala, S., Lopera, F., Manes, F., . . . Ibanez, A. (2017). Brain information sharing during visual short-term memory binding yields a memory biomarker for familial Alzheimer’s disease. Current Alzheimer Research, 14(12), 1335–1347

    2017

  23. [31]

    A., Abrahams, S., Logie, R

    Parra, M. A., Abrahams, S., Logie, R. H., M ´endez, L. G., Lopera, F., and Della Sala, S. (2010). Visual short-term memory binding deficits in familial Alzheimer’s disease. Brain, 133(9), 2702–2713

    2010

  24. [32]

    Mario A. Parra, Sharon Abrahams, Katia Fabi, Robert Logie, Si- mona Luzzi, Sergio Della Sala, Short-term memory binding deficits in Alzheimer’s disease, Brain, V olume 132, Issue 4, April 2009, Pages 1057–1066, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awp036

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Gazes, Y ., Habeck, C., and Stern, Y

    Parra, M. A., Gazes, Y ., Habeck, C., and Stern, Y . (2024). Ex- ploring the association between amyloid-beta and memory mark- ers for Alzheimer’s disease in cognitively unimpaired older adults. Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease, 11(2), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Ibanez, A., Melloni, M., Huepe, D., Helgiu, E., Rivera-Rei, A., Canales- Johnson, A., . . . Moya, A. (2012). What event-related potentials (ERPs) bring to social neuroscience? Social Neuroscience, 7(6), 632–649

    2012

  27. [35]

    R., Samii, M

    Paitel, E. R., Samii, M. R., and Nielson, K. A. (2021). A systematic review of cognitive event-related potentials in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Behavioural Brain Research, 396, 112904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112904, [PubMed]

    2021

  28. [36]

    V ., Fraga, F

    Pedroso, R. V ., Fraga, F. J., Corazza, D. I., Andreatto, C. A. A., de Melo Coelho, F. G., Costa, J. L. R., and Santos-Galdur ´oz, R. F. (2012). P300 latency and amplitude in Alzheimer’s disease: A system- atic review. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 78(4), 126–132. ...

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Ascencio, L

    Parra, M. A., Ascencio, L. L., Urquina, H. F., Manes, F., and Ib ´a˜nez, A. M. (2012). P300 and neuropsychological assessment in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer dementia. Frontiers in Neurology, 3, 172. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2012.00172,

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Normal latency of the P300 event-related potential in mild-to- moderate Alzheimer’s disease and depression

    Kraiuhin C, Gordon E, Coyle S, Sara G, Rennie C, Howson A, Landau P, Meares R. Normal latency of the P300 event-related potential in mild-to- moderate Alzheimer’s disease and depression. Biol Psychiatry. 1990 Sep 1;28(5):372-86. doi: 10.1016/0006-3223(90)90406-r. PMID: 2207218

    1990 doi

  31. [78]

    Epub 2013 May 24

    doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.079. Epub 2013 May 24. PMID: 23707587; PMCID: PMC3807588

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.