Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 93 references

Diffusion-based translation between unpaired spontaneous premature neonatal EEG and fetal MEG

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An unpaired diffusion translation pipeline carries spontaneous EEG bursts into fetal MEG signals and back, with near-zero reconstruction error and no mode collapse.

desk verdict A competent 1D adaptation of DDIB-EDM for EEG-fMEG translation, but the 'near-perfect fidelity' claim rests on a metric that cannot certify semantic correspondence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14224 v1 pith:7FGNM4F6 submitted 2025-07-16 eess.SP cs.LG

Benoît Brebion , Alban Gallard , Katrin Sippel , Amer Zaylaa , Hubert Preissl , Sahar Moghimi , Fabrice Wallois , Yaël Frégier This is my paper
classification eess.SPcs.LG
keywords unpairedtranslationdiffusionmodelsdualimplicitbridgeselucidatedfetalMEGprematureneonatalEEGspontaneousactivityburstsneurobiomarkers
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 claims that unpaired diffusion translation can convert bursts of spontaneous brain activity recorded from premature newborns (EEG) into the corresponding fetal magnetoencephalography (fMEG) signals, and back, even though no paired EEG-fMEG recordings exist. It adapts the Dual Diffusion Implicit Bridges construction to one-dimensional signals, using the Elucidated Diffusion Model parameterization with Heun's second-order solver, and trains separate diffusion models on bursts from 30 premature newborns and 44 fetuses at 34-37 weeks of gestation. Against the earlier CycleGAN baseline, the paper reports raw reconstruction error about two orders of magnitude lower and normalized error lower by nearly five percentage points, with power-spectral-density curves matching the originals across delta, theta, alpha, and lower-beta bands. The authors conclude that mode collapse in the frequency domain is eliminated and that the method sets a new state of the art for EEG-fMEG unpaired translation, making EEG knowledge about neurobiomarkers such as delta brushes and frontal transients transferable to the fetal modality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the shared latent noise space of two independently trained diffusion models, in the Dual Diffusion Implicit Bridges (DDIB) construction: an input is encoded by solving the forward probability-flow ODE of the source model down to a Gaussian latent, then decoded by solving the reverse probability-flow ODE of the target model. The paper's modification is to replace the first-order DDIM integrator used by the original DDIB with the Elucidated Diffusion Model (EDM) parameterization and Heun's second-order method, which the paper credits for preserving high frequencies at 118 function evaluations instead of 500. Because the two ODEs are deterministic and share the same noise-space geometry, cycle consistency follows from the construction rather than from an added cycle loss.

What would settle it

A paired dataset—simultaneous EEG and MEG from the same premature newborns, or simulated signals with a known generative mapping—could settle the claim: if a specific burst round-trips with near-zero error yet its intermediate fMEG does not match the recorded or simulated counterpart's event timing and spectral details, then the latent codes align only in distribution, not in content. A reader could test this by computing per-event cross-correlation between true paired EEG and fMEG bursts and the model's translations; near-zero correlation would falsify semantic alignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that two independently trained diffusion models, one for neonatal EEG bursts and one for fetal MEG bursts, share an implicit latent bridge: driving an EEG sample through the source model's forward probability-flow ODE to a noisy latent and then through the target model's reverse ODE yields an fMEG sample that is semantically consistent with the source, and the round trip restores the original signal without any explicit cycle-consistency loss. The reported reconstruction mean squared error is 0.01 percent of mean signal amplitude for EEG and 0.05 percent for fMEG, compared with 4.34 and 4.84 percent for CycleGAN. When the same bridge is used to compare original and translated signals, the frequency-domain spectra match in four bands, which the paper interprets as eliminating the mode collapse that limited GAN-based translation. Visual inspection of translated fetal MEG also shows that delta brushes and frontal transients, graphoelements long recognised in premature EEG, survive the transfer.

Load-bearing premise

The translation stands on the premise that the Gaussian latent codes of the EEG model and the fMEG model align semantically, so decoding a noised EEG burst with the fMEG model yields the same neural event rather than a plausible but unrelated fMEG burst.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, clinicians can generate the expected fetal MEG appearance of a given premature newborn EEG burst, making established EEG neurobiomarkers usable for interpreting fetal recordings.
  • Delta brushes and frontal transients appear in the translated fMEG with their nested fast oscillations intact, so these markers could be searched for in real fetal MEG recordings.
  • The spectral match across delta, theta, alpha, and lower-beta bands implies the translated signals span the diversity of burst shapes rather than collapsing into a few outputs, addressing the GAN mode collapse problem.
  • Because no cycle-consistency loss is needed, the pipeline is simpler to train than CycleGAN-style models and can be ported to other unpaired time-series translation tasks with low-dimensional signals.
  • The two-orders-of-magnitude drop in raw MSE and the nearly five-point drop in normalized error, together with four-times-fewer function evaluations than original DDIB, constitute the paper's claim of a new state of the art.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication I draw beyond the paper is that a semantically faithful latent bridge could act as a data-augmentation engine, generating synthetic fetal MEG bursts from cheaper and more abundant premature EEG recordings for training downstream fetal-brain classifiers.
  • I infer that the spectral consistency reported here is necessary but not sufficient evidence that the translated signals carry the same neural event as the source; the paper itself notes that without paired EEG-fMEG data, correctness remains hard to establish.
  • A direct testable extension would be a multi-channel version of the pipeline, which the paper leaves as future work and which could strengthen the semantic alignment by exploiting inter-channel correlations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an unpaired translation method between premature neonatal EEG and fetal MEG signals, based on a 1D adaptation of Dual Diffusion Implicit Bridges (DDIB) in which the DDIM backbone is replaced by Elucidated Diffusion Models (EDM) and a second-order Heun solver. The authors train two diffusion models on unpaired EEG and fMEG burst segments, translate by solving the probability-flow ODE (Eqs. 7–8), and evaluate performance using round-trip MSE and frequency-domain PSD comparisons. They report substantial improvements over CycleGAN [33] and the original DDIB, claiming near-perfect signal fidelity and a new state of the art. The manuscript also describes the dataset, preprocessing pipeline, an ablation study, limitations, and states that source code is provided.

Significance. The topic is relevant and timely: transferring EEG-derived knowledge to fMEG could support studies of fetal neurodevelopment, and adapting recent diffusion-based translation methods to 1D biosignals is a worthwhile direction. The paper is transparent about its limitations (Section 5.3) and provides the pipeline code, which are strengths. However, the headline claims rest on a metric that is near zero by construction for any reversible bridge, and the only source-conditional evidence is the visual inspection of two examples (Figure 8). Consequently, the current contribution is more an engineering improvement to DDIB with a plausible but not yet validated translation semantics. If the authors add non-circular, source-conditional validation or substantially soften the claims, the contribution would be significant for the field.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (7)–(8), Table 1] The round-trip MSE is a circular measure of translation correctness. Because each translation leg is a deterministic ODE solve and the return path is the composition of the inverse ODE solves, the round-trip error measures the self-invertibility of each diffusion ODE up to solver discretization error, not whether the intermediate translated signal is the semantically correct fMEG (or EEG) counterpart. Any target model that maps every source latent to a plausible but content-agnostic target-domain signal would still yield near-zero MSE after the return path. The abstract's claims of "almost 5% improvement" and "near-perfect signal fidelity" are therefore not supported by this metric; the authors themselves acknowledge in Section 5.3 that firm conclusions about correctness cannot be drawn without paired data.
  2. [Section 2.3 and Section 5.1, Fig. 8] The load-bearing assumption is that the latent spaces of two independently trained diffusion models align semantically, so that a latent code obtained from an EEG signal decodes into a valid fMEG burst with the same neural content. The statement "Because both models noise trajectories are implicitly aligned, the resulting output is coherent and semantically consistent with the source input" is an assertion without supporting evidence, and the different sensor physics, noise profiles, and spatial sensitivities of EEG and fMEG make this nontrivial. The only direct evidence for semantic alignment is the visual inspection of two examples (delta brush and frontal transient) in Figure 8, which is insufficient to establish source-conditional correspondence. The authors should either temper the semantic-consistency claim or validate it with a concrete task, such as a paired EEG–MEG dataset, synthetic paired experiments, or cross-modal retrieval/classification of known biomarkers.
  3. [Section 4.2, Fig. 6] The spectral comparison is a marginal distribution comparison and is insensitive to pairwise correspondence. Matching the average PSD of the translated set to the target set is necessary but not sufficient for translation correctness; a generator that always produces arbitrary target-domain samples could match this statistic. The text states that this comparison "allows to make sure that the models don't converge to wrong maps like the identity," but identity would be detected by comparing the translated PSD to the source rather than to the target, and the reported comparison does not directly test this. Please quantify the spectral match (e.g., log-spectral distance with confidence intervals) and report a null-model comparison against independent target-domain samples.
  4. [Section 5.2 and Table 1] The ablation comparison against DDIB is confounded by the solver order and the number of function evaluations. The authors attribute the improvement to the EDM/Heun modifications, but the baseline DDIB uses a first-order solver with NFE=500 while the proposed method uses Heun's second-order solver with NFE=118. Higher-order solvers are generally expected to produce lower discretization error at smaller NFE. To isolate the benefit of the EDM parameterization and the Heun solver, hold either the solver order or the NFE constant, or report the error-versus-NFE trade-off for both methods.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrases "near-perfect signal fidelity" and "we set a new state of the art" overstate what the current evidence supports, given the authors' own caveat in Section 5.3; consider rewording to reflect the stated limitations.
  2. [Section 4.2] The phrase "completely eliminating the mode collapse problem in the frequency domain" is unclear, since mode collapse is a diversity problem in the output distribution, not a frequency-domain phenomenon; please rephrase.
  3. [Figures 4–7] The shaded standard-deviation bands on log-scale PSD plots are hard to interpret by eye; consider adding quantitative band-wise distances (e.g., mean absolute log-PSD difference) with error bars.
  4. [Table 1] Please define precisely how the MSE/MAV ratio is computed and why it is used instead of more standard normalized error measures; also state whether the "almost 5%" refers to percentage points of this ratio or to relative change.
  5. [Section 3.2] Some hyperparameters (noise schedule, number of solver steps, NFE, batch size, learning rate) appear only in Table 1 or in the text; please provide a complete list in one place to improve reproducibility.
  6. [Section 4.1] The sentence linking the estimated fetal head diameter (around 10 cm) to the 10-channel region of interest is unclear; please clarify how the ROI size follows from the head diameter estimate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline 'near-perfect signal fidelity' and the SOTA claim rest on a round-trip MSE that the DDIB construction (Eqs. 7-8) guarantees to be near zero by design; only the marginal-PSD comparison in Fig. 6 is an independent check.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3 (Eqs. 7-8) and Section 4.2 (Table 1)]
    "When applied consecutively, i.e. from source x(s) to latent x(l) to target x(t) and then back to latent x′(l) to source x′(s), cycle consistency x(s) = x′(s) is guaranteed, up to numerical errors from the ODE solvers. ... We compute the Mean Squared Error (MSE) between original and reconstructed signals, along with the ratio percentage between the MSE and the Mean Absolute Value (MAV)."

    Section 4.2 uses the round-trip MSE (EEG→fMEG→EEG and fMEG→EEG→fMEG) to support the central claims of near-perfect fidelity and a new state of the art. In the DDIB construction, the outward and return legs are the inverse PF-ODE solves of Eqs. (7)-(8) run with the same trained vector fields, so the composition is the identity up to solver discretization error. A near-zero MSE is therefore implied by the architecture and mainly measures the accuracy of Heun's solver, not whether the intermediate translated signal is the semantically correct fMEG counterpart of the source EEG.

full rationale

The DDIB/EDM pipeline is otherwise self-contained: the two diffusion models are trained independently on unpaired EEG and fMEG bursts, the spectral comparison in Fig. 6 against target-domain PSDs is a genuine external check of marginal statistics, and the authors explicitly concede in §5.3 that 'in the absence of EEG-fMEG paired data, it remains difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the correctness of the translated signals.' The significant circularity is the use of round-trip MSE as evidence of translation fidelity and SOTA status: Eqs. (7)-(8) force that quantity to equal the ODE solver error, so the reported near-perfect reconstruction is a property of the solver, not of EEG-fMEG semantic correspondence. This is a partial circularity because the PSD coverage and the visual delta-brush/frontal-transient examples provide independent (if weak) support. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is present; the cited prior work [33] serves only as a baseline. Score 6 rather than 8 or 10 because the paper includes an independent frequency-domain check and honestly states the paired-data limitation.

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

The central claim does not rely on new physical entities; it rests on standard ML assumptions. The main free parameters are preprocessing choices (thresholds, projectors, normalization) and solver settings. The key domain assumption is that the shared latent space of independent diffusion models yields meaningful cross-modal alignment, and that frequency-domain statistics suffice for validation.

free parameters (4)
  • NLEO burst-detection threshold = EEG: 0.81 ± 0.23 µV²; fMEG: 17.0 ± 6.4 fT²
    Manually optimized for each subject by visual inspection; decides which signal segments become training examples.
  • Number of fMEG cardiac projection operators = 1-3 per phase, chosen manually
    Selected per recording by visual inspection to remove maternal and fetal cardiac artifacts; affects all fMEG inputs.
  • Noise schedule and solver steps (NFE) = 118 steps
    Chosen as a compute-quality trade-off; the reconstruction error depends on this choice.
  • Normalization range = [-1, 1] using global min/max
    The min/max are computed over the entire dataset, including the test set, before splitting. This is a free normalization choice that can leak test-set information.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math DDIB cycle consistency holds up to solver error (Theorem from [66])
    Section 2.3, Eq. (7)-(8). The paper's reconstruction metric relies on this.
  • domain assumption Latent spaces of independently trained diffusion models are semantically aligned
    Section 2.3: 'the resulting output is coherent and semantically consistent with the source input.' This is the key unvalidated premise.
  • domain assumption PSD matching is a sufficient proxy for translation correctness
    Section 4.2 and 5.3. The paper admits the lack of paired data makes correctness hard to establish.
  • domain assumption EEG and fMEG spontaneous activity at the same gestational age share comparable signatures
    Introduction, refs [20] and [33]; motivates the whole translation task.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffusion-based translation between unpaired spontaneous premature neonatal EEG and fetal MEG." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7FGNM4F6

@misc{pith2026250714224,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffusion-based translation between unpaired spontaneous premature neonatal EEG and fetal MEG},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7FGNM4F6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14224}
}
read the original abstract

Background and objective: Brain activity in premature newborns has traditionally been studied using electroencephalography (EEG), leading to substantial advances in our understanding of early neural development. However, since brain development takes root at the fetal stage, a critical window of this process remains largely unknown. The only technique capable of recording neural activity in the intrauterine environment is fetal magnetoencephalography (fMEG), but this approach presents challenges in terms of data quality and scarcity. Using artificial intelligence, the present research aims to transfer the well-established knowledge from EEG studies to fMEG to improve understanding of prenatal brain development, laying the foundations for better detection and treatment of potential pathologies. Methods: We developed an unpaired diffusion translation method based on dual diffusion bridges, which notably includes numerical integration improvements to obtain more qualitative results at a lower computational cost. Models were trained on our unpaired dataset of bursts of spontaneous activity from 30 high-resolution premature newborns EEG recordings and 44 fMEG recordings. Results: We demonstrate that our method achieves significant improvement upon previous results obtained with Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), by almost 5% on the mean squared error in the time domain, and completely eliminating the mode collapse problem in the frequency domain, thus achieving near-perfect signal fidelity. Conclusion: We set a new state of the art in the EEG-fMEG unpaired translation problem, as our developed tool completely paves the way for early brain activity analysis. Overall, we also believe that our method could be reused for other unpaired signal translation applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14224 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our diffusion-based translation method at inference using the previously trained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of original EEG signals (top row) translated into fMEG signals (middle row) and then [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of original fMEG signals (top row) translated into EEG signals (middle row) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral power results with our method. Original signals spectrum compared to reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral power results with DDIB. Original signals spectrum compared to reconstructed signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectral power results with our method. Original signals spectrum compared to translated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectral power results with DDIB. Original signals spectrum compared to translated signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of a sample containing a delta brush (left column) and frontal transient (right column) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spatial amplitude distribution of smoothed NLEO for one participant, with selected region of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    Gallard, B

    A. Gallard, B. Brebion, K. Sippel, A. Zaylaa, H. Preissl, S. Moghimi, Y. Fregier, F. Wal- lois, Transforming spontaneous premature neonatal eeg to spontaneous fetal meg us- ing a novel machine learning approach, Neurophysiologie Clinique 55 (2025) 103086. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucli.2025.103086

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Wallois, L

    F. Wallois, L. Routier, C. Heberl´ e, M. Mahmoudzadeh, E. Bourel-Ponchel, S. Moghimi, Back to basics: the neuronal substrates and mechanisms that underlie the electroencephalogram in premature neonates, Neurophysiologie Clinique = Clinical Neurophysiology 51 (2021) 5–33. doi:10.1016/j.neucli.2020.10.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neucli.2020.10.006 2021

  3. [2]

    Preissl, H

    H. Preissl, H. Eswaran, P. Murphy, J. Wilson, S. Robinson, J. Vrba, A. Fife, M. Tilotson, C. Lowery, Recording of temporal-spatial biomagnetic signals over the whole maternal abdomen with sara - auditory fetal brain responses, Biomedical Engineering / Biomedizinische Technik 46 (2001) 191–

    2001

  4. [3]

    Time-Domain Audio Source Separation Based on Wave-U-Net Combined with Discrete Wavelet Transform

    H. Preissl, H. Eswaran, J. Wilson, S. Robinson, J. Vrba, P. Murphy, C. Lowery, Redefining fetal evoked fields with biomagnetic recordings over the whole maternal abdomen, in: 2001 Conference Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, volume 1, 2001, pp. 620–623 vol.1. doi:10.1109/IEMBS....

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    J. Vrba, S. Robinson, J. McCubbin, P. Murphy, H. Eswaran, J. Wilson, H. Preißl, C. Lowery, Human fetal brain imaging by magnetoencephalography: verification of fetal brain signals by comparison with fetal brain models, NeuroImage 21 (2004) 1009–1020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.10.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.10.022 2004

  6. [6]

    Moraru, R

    L. Moraru, R. Sameni, U. Schneider, J. Haueisen, E. Schleußner, D. Hoyer, Validation of fetal audi- tory evoked cortical responses to enhance the assessment of early brain development using fetal meg measurements, Physiological measurement 32 (2011) 1847–68. doi:10.1088/0967-3334/32/11/002

    work page doi:10.1088/0967-3334/32/11/002 2011

  7. [7]

    Vairavan, R

    S. Vairavan, R. B. Govindan, N. Haddad, H. Preissl, C. L. Lowery, E. Siegel, H. Eswaran, Quantification of fetal magnetoencephalographic activity in low-risk fetuses us- ing burst duration and interburst interval, Clinical Neurophysiology 125 (2014) 1353–1359. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2013.11.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2013.11.018 2014

  8. [8]

    Linder, F

    K. Linder, F. Schleger, I. Kiefer-Schmidt, L. Fritsche, S. K¨ ummel, M. B¨ ocker, M. Heni, M. Weiss, H.-U. H¨ aring, H. Preissl, A. Fritsche, Gestational diabetes impairs human fetal postprandial brain activity, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism (2015). doi:10.1210/jc.2015-2692

    work page doi:10.1210/jc.2015-2692 2015

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Morin, F

    E. Morin, F. Schleger, H. Preissl, J. Br¨ andle, H. Eswaran, H. Abele, I. Kiefer-Schmidt, Func- tional brain development in growth-restricted and constitutionally small fetuses: A fetal magnetoen- cephalography case-control study, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics a...

    2015

  2. [10]

    Frohlich, J

    J. Frohlich, J. Moser, K. Sippel, P. A. M. Mediano, H. Preissl, A. Gharabaghi, Sex differences in prenatal development of neural complexity in the human brain, Nature Mental Health (2024). doi:10.1038/s44220-024-00206-4

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Corvilain, C

    P. Corvilain, C. Capparini, V. Wens, L. Fourdin, M. Ferez, O. Feys, A. Delbaere, R. Lejeune, D. Goldman, C. De Coninck, X. De Ti` ege, J. Bertels, Fetal magnetoencephalography based on optically pumped magnetometers, bioRxiv (2025). doi:10.1101/2025.04.23.650121

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    A. F. Bos, K. N. J. A. Van Braeckel, M. M. Hitzert, J. C. Tanis, E. Roze, Development of fine motor skills in preterm infants, Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 55 Suppl 4 (2013) 1–4

    2013

  5. [13]

    T. R. Fenton, J. H. Kim, A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the fenton growth chart for preterm infants, BMC Pediatr. 13 (2013) 59

    2013

  6. [14]

    J. H. Gilmore, R. C. Knickmeyer, W. Gao, Imaging structural and functional brain development in early childhood, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 19 (2018) 123–137. doi:10.1038/nrn.2018.1

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    N. Zmyj, S. Witt, A. Weitk¨ amper, H. Neumann, T. L¨ ucke, Social cognition in children born preterm: A perspective on future research directions, Front. Psychol. 8 (2017) 455

    2017

  8. [16]

    Bouyssi-Kobar, J

    M. Bouyssi-Kobar, J. De Asis-Cruz, J. Murnick, T. Chang, C. Limperopoulos, Altered func- tional brain network integration, segregation, and modularity in infants born very preterm at term- equivalent age, J. Pediatr. 213 (2019) 13–21.e1

    2019

  9. [17]

    Sa de Almeida, D.-E

    J. Sa de Almeida, D.-E. Meskaldji, S. Loukas, L. Lordier, L. Gui, F. Lazeyras, P. S. H¨ uppi, Preterm birth leads to impaired rich-club organization and fronto-paralimbic/limbic structural connectivity in newborns, Neuroimage 225 (2021) 117440

    2021

  10. [18]

    McCubbin, P

    J. McCubbin, P. Murphy, H. Eswaran, H. Preissl, T. Yee, S. E. Robinson, J. Vrba, Validation of the flash-evoked response from fetal MEG, Phys. Med. Biol. 52 (2007) 5803–5813

    2007

  11. [19]

    Holst, H

    M. Holst, H. Eswaran, C. Lowery, P. Murphy, J. Norton, H. Preissl, Development of auditory 19 evoked fields in human fetuses and newborns: a longitudinal MEG study, Clin. Neurophysiol. 116 (2005) 1949–1955

    2005

  12. [20]

    Eswaran, N

    H. Eswaran, N. I. Haddad, B. S. Shihabuddin, H. Preissl, E. R. Siegel, P. Murphy, C. L. Lowery, Non-invasive detection and identification of brain activity patterns in the developing fetus, Clin. Neurophysiol. 118 (2007) 1940–1946

    2007

  13. [21]

    Vairavan, R

    S. Vairavan, R. B. Govindan, N. Haddad, H. Preissl, C. L. Lowery, E. Siegel, H. Eswaran, Quan- tification of fetal magnetoencephalographic activity in low-risk fetuses using burst duration and interburst interval, Clin. Neurophysiol. 125 (2014) 1353–1359

    2014

  14. [22]

    H. J. Luhmann, P. O. Kanold, Z. Moln´ ar, S. Vanhatalo, Early brain activity: Translations between bedside and laboratory, Prog. Neurobiol. 213 (2022) 102268

    2022

  15. [23]

    N. Kane, J. Acharya, S. Benickzy, L. Caboclo, S. Finnigan, P. W. Kaplan, H. Shibasaki, R. Pressler, M. J. A. M. van Putten, A revised glossary of terms most commonly used by clinical electroen- cephalographers and updated proposal for the report format of the EEG findings. rev...

    2017

  16. [24]

    Bourel-Ponchel, S

    E. Bourel-Ponchel, S. Gueden, D. Hasaerts, C. H´ eberl´ e, G. Malfilˆ atre, L. Mony, P. Vignolo-Diard, M.-D. Lamblin, Normal eeg during the neonatal period: maturational aspects from premature to full-term newborns, Neurophysiologie Clinique 51 (2021) 61–88. doi:10.1016/j.neuc...

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Routier, M

    L. Routier, M. Mahmoudzadeh, M. Panzani, H. Azizollahi, S. Goudjil, G. Kongolo, F. Wallois, Plasticity of neonatal neuronal networks in very premature infants: Source localization of temporal theta activity, the first endogenous neural biomarker, in temporoparietal areas, Hum....

    2017

  18. [26]

    Khazipov, M

    R. Khazipov, M. Milh, Early patterns of activity in the developing cortex: Focus on the sensorimotor system, Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 76 (2018) 120–129

    2018

  19. [27]

    Routier, M

    L. Routier, M. Mahmoudzadeh, M. Panzani, B. Saadatmehr, J. Gondry, E. Bourel-Ponchel, S. Moghimi, F. Wallois, The frontal sharp transient in newborns: An endogenous neurobiomarker concomitant to the physiological and critical transitional period around delivery?, Cereb. Cortex...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Kaminska, V

    A. Kaminska, V. Delattre, J. Laschet, J. Dubois, M. Labidurie, A. Duval, A. Manresa, J.-F. Magny, S. Hovhannisyan, M. Mokhtari, L. Ouss, A. Boissel, L. Hertz-Pannier, M. Sintsov, M. Minlebaev, R. Khazipov, C. Chiron, Cortical auditory-evoked responses in preterm neonates: Revi...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Moghimi, A

    S. Moghimi, A. Shadkam, M. Mahmoudzadeh, O. Calipe, M. Panzani, M. Edalati, M. Ghorbani, L. Routier, F. Wallois, The intimate relationship between coalescent generators in very premature human newborn brains: Quantifying the coupling of nested endogenous oscillations, Hum. Bra...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Wallois, L

    F. Wallois, L. Routier, E. Bourel-Ponchel, Impact of prematurity on neurodevelopment, Handb. Clin. Neurol. 173 (2020) 341–375

    2020

  23. [31]

    Moser, K

    J. Moser, K. Sippel, F. Schleger, H. Preißl, Automated detection of fetal brain signals with principal component analysis, in: 2019 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2019, pp. 6549–6552. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2019.8857283

    2019

  24. [32]

    Vairavan, H

    S. Vairavan, H. Eswaran, N. Haddad, D. F. Rose, H. Preissl, J. D. Wilson, C. L. Lowery, R. B. Govindan, Detection of discontinuous patterns in spontaneous brain activity of neonates and fetuses, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 56 (2009) 2725–2729

    2009

  25. [34]

    J. Zhu, T. Park, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle- consistent adversarial networks, in: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2017, Venice, Italy, October 22-29, 2017, IEEE Computer Society, 2017, pp. 2242–2251. doi:10.110...

    2017 doi

  26. [35]

    Armanious, C

    K. Armanious, C. Jiang, M. Fischer, T. K¨ ustner, T. Hepp, K. Nikolaou, S. Gatidis, B. Yang, Medgan: Medical image translation using gans, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph. 79 (2020) 101684. doi:10.1016/J.COMPMEDIMAG.2019.101684

    2020

  27. [36]

    Armanious, C

    K. Armanious, C. Jiang, S. Abdulatif, T. K¨ ustner, S. Gatidis, B. Yang, Unsupervised medical image translation using cycle-medgan, in: 27th European Signal Processing Conference, EUSIPCO 2019, A Coru˜ na, Spain, September 2-6, 2019, IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–5. doi:10.23919/EUSIPCO.2...

    2019

  28. [37]

    Mohebbian, S

    M. Mohebbian, S. S. Vedaei, K. A. Wahid, A. Dinh, H. R. Marateb, K. Tavakolian, Fetal ECG extraction from maternal ECG using attention-based cyclegan, IEEE J. Biomed. Health Informatics 20 26 (2022) 515–526. doi:10.1109/JBHI.2021.3111873

    2022

  29. [38]

    Sarkar, A

    P. Sarkar, A. Etemad, Cardiogan: Attentive generative adversarial network with dual discriminators for synthesis of ECG from PPG, in: Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligen...

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    Schockaert, H

    C. Schockaert, H. Hoyez, Mts-cyclegan: An adversarial-based deep mapping learning network for multivariate time series domain adaptation applied to the ironmaking industry, CoRR abs/2007.07518 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Kossale, M

    Y. Kossale, M. Airaj, A. Darouichi, Mode collapse in generative adversarial networks: An overview, in: 2022 8th International Conference on Optimization and Applications (ICOA), 2022, pp. 1–6. doi:10.1109/ICOA55659.2022.9934291

    2022

  32. [41]

    Sohl-Dickstein, E

    J. Sohl-Dickstein, E. A. Weiss, N. Maheswaranathan, S. Ganguli, Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics, CoRR abs/1503.03585 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Y. Song, S. Ermon, Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution, in: H. M. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d’Alch´ e-Buc, E. B. Fox, R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Informat...

    2019

  34. [43]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, P. Abbeel, Denoising diffusion probabilistic models, in: H. Larochelle, M. Ran- zato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, H. Lin (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, Curran Associates, Inc., 2020, pp. 6840–6851

    2020

  35. [44]

    Y. Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, B. Poole, Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations, in: 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021, 2021

    2021

  36. [45]

    A. Q. Nichol, P. Dhariwal, Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models, in: M. Meila, T. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research,...

    2021

  37. [46]

    Dhariwal, A

    P. Dhariwal, A. Q. Nichol, Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis, in: M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. N. Dauphin, P. Liang, J. W. Vaughan (Eds.), Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, Neu...

    2021

  38. [47]

    Ramesh, M

    A. Ramesh, M. Pavlov, G. Goh, S. Gray, C. Voss, A. Radford, M. Chen, I. Sutskever, Zero-shot text-to-image generation, in: M. Meila, T. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of ...

    2021

  39. [48]

    Rombach, A

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, B. Ommer, High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models, in: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022, IEEE, 2022, pp. 10674–10685. doi:10.1...

    2022

  40. [49]

    Saharia, W

    C. Saharia, W. Chan, S. Saxena, L. Li, J. Whang, E. L. Denton, K. Ghasemipour, R. Gontijo Lopes, B. Karagol Ayan, T. Salimans, J. Ho, D. J. Fleet, M. Norouzi, Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding, in: S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal,...

    2022

  41. [50]

    Z. Kong, W. Ping, J. Huang, K. Zhao, B. Catanzaro, Diffwave: A versatile diffusion model for audio synthesis, in: 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021, 2021

    2021

  42. [51]

    J. M. L. Alcaraz, N. Strodthoff, Diffusion-based conditional ECG generation with structured state space models, Comput. Biol. Medicine 163 (2023) 107115. doi:10.1016/J.COMPBIOMED.2023.107115

    2023

  43. [52]

    Coletta, S

    A. Coletta, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. Borrajo, S. Vyetrenko, On the constrained time-series generation problem, in: A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, S. Levine (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, Curran Associates, Inc., 2023, ...

    2023

  44. [53]

    T. Yan, H. Zhang, T. Zhou, Y. Zhan, Y. Xia, Scoregrad: Multivariate probabilistic time series forecasting with continuous energy-based generative models, CoRR abs/2106.10121 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Rasul, C

    K. Rasul, C. Seward, I. Schuster, R. Vollgraf, Autoregressive denoising diffusion models for mul- 21 tivariate probabilistic time series forecasting, in: M. Meila, T. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021...

    2021

  46. [55]

    Y. Li, X. Lu, Y. Wang, D. Dou, Generative time series forecasting with diffusion, denoise, and disentanglement, in: S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, A. Oh (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, Curran Associates, Inc., 2022...

    2022

  47. [56]

    Chang, H

    P. Chang, H. Li, S. F. Quan, J. Roveda, A. Li, TDSTF: transformer-based diffu- sion probabilistic model for sparse time series forecasting, CoRR abs/2301.06625 (2023). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2301.06625

    2023 doi arXiv

  48. [57]

    Tashiro, J

    Y. Tashiro, J. Song, Y. Song, S. Ermon, CSDI: conditional score-based diffusion models for prob- abilistic time series imputation, in: M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. N. Dauphin, P. Liang, J. W. Vaughan (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Confer...

    2021

  49. [58]

    J. M. L. Alcaraz, N. Strodthoff, Diffusion-based time series imputation and forecasting with struc- tured state space models, Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 (2023)

    2023

  50. [59]

    Y. Chen, C. Zhang, M. Ma, Y. Liu, R. Ding, B. Li, S. He, S. Rajmohan, Q. Lin, D. Zhang, Imdiffusion: Imputed diffusion models for multivariate time series anomaly detection, Proc. VLDB Endow. 17 (2023) 359–372

    2023

  51. [60]

    C. Yang, T. Wang, X. Yan, DDMT: denoising diffusion mask transformer models for multivariate time series anomaly detection, CoRR abs/2310.08800 (2023). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2310.08800

    2023 doi arXiv

  52. [61]

    H. Li, G. Ditzler, J. Roveda, A. Li, Descod-ecg: Deep score-based diffusion model for ECG baseline wander and noise removal, CoRR abs/2208.00542 (2022). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2208.00542

    2022 doi arXiv

  53. [62]

    Sasaki, C

    H. Sasaki, C. G. Willcocks, T. P. Breckon, UNIT-DDPM: unpaired image translation with denoising diffusion probabilistic models, CoRR abs/2104.05358 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  54. [63]

    C. H. Wu, F. D. la Torre, Unifying diffusion models’ latent space, with applications to cyclediffusion and guidance, CoRR abs/2210.05559 (2022). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2210.05559

    2022 doi arXiv

  55. [64]

    M. Zhao, F. Bao, C. LI, J. Zhu, Egsde: Unpaired image-to-image translation via energy-guided stochastic differential equations, in: S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, A. Oh (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, Curran Associ...

    2022

  56. [65]

    ¨Ozbey, O

    M. ¨Ozbey, O. Dalmaz, S. U. H. Dar, H. A. Bedel, S. ¨Ozt¨ urk, A. G¨ ung¨ or, T. C ¸ ukur, Unsupervised medical image translation with adversarial diffusion models, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging 42 (2023) 3524–3539. doi:10.1109/TMI.2023.3290149

    2023

  57. [66]

    X. Su, J. Song, C. Meng, S. Ermon, Dual diffusion implicit bridges for image-to-image transla- tion, in: The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023, 2023

    2023

  58. [67]

    Shome, P

    D. Shome, P. Sarkar, A. Etemad, Region-disentangled diffusion model for high-fidelity ppg-to-ecg translation, in: M. J. Wooldridge, J. G. Dy, S. Natarajan (Eds.), Thirty-Eighth AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2024, Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovative Appli...

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    Belhasin, I

    O. Belhasin, I. Kligvasser, G. Leifman, R. Cohen, E. Rainaldi, L. Cheng, N. Verma, P. Varghese, E. Rivlin, M. Elad, Uncertainty-aware PPG-2-ECG for enhanced cardiovascular diagnosis using diffusion models, CoRR abs/2405.11566 (2024). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2405.11566

    2024 doi arXiv

  60. [69]

    B. D. Anderson, Reverse-time diffusion equation models, Stochastic Processes and their Applica- tions 12 (1982) 313–326. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4149(82)90051-5

    1982 doi

  61. [70]

    J. Song, C. Meng, S. Ermon, Denoising diffusion implicit models, in: 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021, 2021

    2021

  62. [71]

    Schr¨ odinger, Sur la th´ eorie relativiste de l’´ electron et l’interpr´ etation de la m´ ecanique quantique, Annales de l’institut Henri Poincar´ e 2 (1932) 269–310

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Sur la th´ eorie relativiste de l’´ electron et l’interpr´ etation de la m´ ecanique quantique, Annales de l’institut Henri Poincar´ e 2 (1932) 269–310

    1932

  63. [72]

    V. D. Bortoli, J. Thornton, J. Heng, A. Doucet, Diffusion schr¨ odinger bridge with applications to score-based generative modeling, in: M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. N. Dauphin, P. Liang, J. W. Vaughan (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conf...

    2021

  64. [73]

    S. Xu, Z. Ma, Y. Huang, H. Lee, J. Chai, Cyclenet: Rethinking cycle consistency in text-guided 22 diffusion for image manipulation, in: A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, S. Levine (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, Curran ...

    2023

  65. [74]

    B. Kim, G. Kwon, K. Kim, J. C. Ye, Unpaired image-to-image translation via neural schr¨ odinger bridge, in: The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024, 2024

    2024

  66. [75]

    S. Lee, K. Kim, J. C. Ye, Single-step bidirectional unpaired image translation using implicit bridge consistency distillation, CoRR abs/2503.15056 (2025). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2503.15056

    2025 doi arXiv

  67. [76]

    Karras, M

    T. Karras, M. Aittala, T. Aila, S. Laine, Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models, in: S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, A. Oh (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, Curran Associates, Inc., 2022, p...

    2022

  68. [77]

    U. M. Ascher, L. R. Petzold, Computer methods for ordinary differential equations and differential- algebraic equations, SIAM, 1998

    1998

  69. [78]

    Mancusi, Y

    M. Mancusi, Y. Halychanskyi, K. W. Cheuk, C. Lai, S. Uhlich, J. Koo, M. A. M. Ram ´ ırez, W. Liao, G. Fabbro, Y. Mitsufuji, Latent diffusion bridges for unsupervised musical audio timbre transfer, CoRR abs/2409.06096 (2024). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2409.06096

    2024 doi arXiv

  70. [79]

    Sazgar, M

    M. Sazgar, M. G. Young, Overview of EEG, Electrode Placement, and Montages, Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 2019, pp. 117–125

    2019

  71. [80]

    Koolen, L

    N. Koolen, L. Oberdorfer, Z. Rona, V. Giordano, T. Werther, K. Klebermass-Schrehof, N. Steven- son, S. Vanhatalo, Automated classification of neonatal sleep states using EEG, Clin. Neurophysiol. 128 (2017) 1100–1108

    2017

  72. [81]

    N. J. Stevenson, M.-L. Tataranno, A. Kaminska, E. Pavlidis, R. R. Clancy, E. Griesmaier, J. A. Roberts, K. Klebermass-Schrehof, S. Vanhatalo, Reliability and accuracy of EEG interpretation for estimating age in preterm infants, Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol. 7 (2020) 1564–1573

    2020

  73. [82]

    J. Vrba, S. E. Robinson, J. McCubbin, C. L. Lowery, H. Eswaran, J. D. Wilson, P. Murphy, H. Preissl, Fetal MEG redistribution by projection operators, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 51 (2004) 1207–1218. doi:10.1109/TBME.2004.827265

    2004

  74. [83]

    McCubbin, S

    J. McCubbin, S. E. Robinson, R. Cropp, A. Moiseev, J. Vrba, P. Murphy, H. Preissl, H. Eswaran, Optimal reduction of MCG in fetal MEG recordings, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 53 (2006) 1720– 1724

    2006

  75. [84]

    Palmu, N

    K. Palmu, N. Stevenson, S. Wikstr¨ om, L. Hellstr¨ om-Westas, S. Vanhatalo, J. M. Palva, Optimiza- tion of an NLEO-based algorithm for automated detection of spontaneous activity transients in early preterm EEG, Physiol. Meas. 31 (2010) N85–93

    2010

  76. [85]

    Palmu, S

    K. Palmu, S. Wikstr¨ om, E. Hippel¨ ainen, G. Boylan, L. Hellstr¨ om-Westas, S. Vanhatalo, Detection of ’EEG bursts’ in the early preterm EEG: visual vs. automated detection, Clin. Neurophysiol. 121 (2010) 1015–1022

    2010

  77. [86]

    Segovia, A

    S. Segovia, A. Guillam´ on, M. C. del Cerro, E. Ortega, C. P´ erez-Laso, M. Rodriguez-Zafra, C. Beyer, The development of brain sex differences: a multisignaling process, Behav. Brain Res. 105 (1999) 69–80

    1999

  78. [87]

    Moser, F

    J. Moser, F. Schleger, M. Weiss, K. Sippel, L. Semeia, H. Preissl, Magnetoencephalographic signa- tures of conscious processing before birth, Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 49 (2021) 100964

    2021

  79. [88]

    L. S. Chitty, D. G. Altman, A. Henderson, S. Campbell, Charts of fetal size: 2. head measurements, BJOG 101 (1994) 35–43

    1994

  80. [89]

    R. W. Brislin, Back-translation for cross-cultural research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1 (1970) 185–216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301

    1970 doi

  81. [90]

    Salimans, J

    T. Salimans, J. Ho, Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models, in: The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022, 2022

    2022

  82. [91]

    P. Jeha, M. Bohlke-Schneider, P. Mercado, S. Kapoor, R. Nirwan, V. Flunkert, J. Gasthaus, T. Januschowski, PSA-GAN: progressive self attention gans for synthetic time series, in: The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25...

    2022

  83. [92]

    Diffusion-based trans- lation between unpaired spontaneous premature neonatal EEG and fetal MEG

    M. Heusel, H. Ramsauer, T. Unterthiner, B. Nessler, S. Hochreiter, Gans trained by a two time- scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium, in: I. Guyon, U. von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. M. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. V. N. Vishwanathan, R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in Neura...

    2017

  84. [94]

    Population The distribution of participants per signal modality can be found in Table 2

    Dataset 7.1. Population The distribution of participants per signal modality can be found in Table 2. All infants of the EEG study had normal birth parameters, an APGAR score above 5 at 5 minutes, a normal clinical neurological assessment, and no risk factors for brain damage,...

  85. [193]

    doi:10.1515/bmte.2001.46.s2.191

    2001 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.