pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22275 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 🧬 q-bio.NC

Recognition: unknown

Early Preconfiguration Failure: A Novel Predictor of the Repetitive Subconcussion

Jiajia Li , Zhenzhen Yu , Zhenghao Fu , Guozheng Xu , Jian Song
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 09:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.NC
keywords repetitive subconcussionEEGearly cortical dynamicspre-configurationsigned center distancemachine learning classificationvisual attentioncortical integration
0
0 comments X

The pith

Repetitive subconcussion produces measurable failure in early cortical pre-configuration dynamics that EEG can detect within the first 100 milliseconds of visual attention.

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

The paper aims to show that repetitive subconcussive brain injuries disrupt the brain's ability to set up cortical networks in the initial milliseconds before a visual stimulus is processed, and that these disruptions can be captured with EEG where slower imaging methods cannot. Healthy brains show a clear sequence of elevated integration right after stimulus onset, a rebound phase, and later perception-related peaks, but rSC patients lack this early buildup. If the claim holds, millisecond-scale EEG during simple attention tasks could serve as an early diagnostic tool for rSC before symptoms accumulate, separating it from both healthy states and more severe chronic traumatic brain injury.

Core claim

Healthy controls display elevated cortical integration at 0-100 ms, rebound dynamics at 100-200 ms, and visual perception integration peaks at 200-600 ms. Patients with repetitive subconcussion show significantly reduced integration levels and lower early signed center distance values in separation-integration trajectories, indicating impaired pre-configuration dynamics. Chronic TBI patients exhibit negative SCD values. Machine learning classifiers using these early cortical features distinguish the three groups with optimal performance.

What carries the argument

Early cortical integration levels and signed center distance (SCD) of separation-integration trajectories extracted from EEG during visual attention tasks, used to quantify pre-configuration dynamics.

If this is right

  • Early cortical features from EEG allow machine learning to classify rSC patients separately from healthy controls and cTBI cases.
  • Decline in pre-configuration dynamics, indexed by reduced integration and SCD, serves as a specific marker for rSC distinct from irreversible damage in cTBI.
  • Millisecond-level temporal patterns in cortical integration become usable for diagnosis where conventional slow imaging fails.
  • SCD sign and magnitude differentiate reversible early disruption in rSC from negative values in chronic cases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If pre-configuration failure precedes clinical symptoms, repeated EEG screening during visual tasks could track cumulative exposure risk in contact-sport athletes.
  • The same early integration measures might apply to other mild repetitive head impacts if the temporal pattern generalizes beyond the current visual attention paradigm.
  • Combining SCD trajectories with standard clinical scales could create a composite index that flags when pre-configuration decline crosses into measurable impairment.

Load-bearing premise

That the reduced early integration and SCD values specifically mark pre-configuration failure caused by repetitive subconcussion rather than attention deficits, medication, or other unmeasured factors.

What would settle it

A replication study with larger samples that measures attention performance and finds no difference in 0-100 ms integration or early SCD between rSC patients and matched controls.

read the original abstract

Early diagnosis and assessment of repetitive subconcussive (rSC) brain injuries are crucial for early clinical intervention. Conventional methods, largely relying on slow fMRI, fail to capture millisecond-level early cortical dynamics, particularly spatiotemporal features associated with pre-configuration dynamics. This study introduces a novel approach integrating dynamic hierarchical spatial features and cortical early behavioral time-domain sensitivity, utilizing EEG and visual attention tasks. We analyzed cortical early behaviors in 24 healthy controls (HC), 21 rSC patients,and a validation cohort of 25 cTBI patients from public datasets. Results reveal distinct temporal patterns in HC: elevated integration at 0-100 ms, rebound dynamics at 100-200ms, and visual perception integration peaks at 200-600 ms. In contrast, rSC patients exhibited significantly impaired dynamic features, with reduced integration levels indicating a decline in pre-configuration dynamics. Signed center distance (SCD) analysis of separation-integration trajectories showed significantly lower early SCD values in rSC patients compared to HC, while cTBI patients displayed negative SCD values, reflecting irreversible damage. Machine learning classification achieved optimal performance in distinguishing between HC, rSC, and cTBI groups using early cortical features, highlighting the critical role of millisecond-level cortical dynamics in rSC diagnosis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that EEG-derived early cortical dynamics during visual attention tasks reveal a novel 'early preconfiguration failure' in repetitive subconcussion (rSC). Specifically, healthy controls (n=24) show elevated integration at 0-100 ms, rebound at 100-200 ms, and perception peaks at 200-600 ms, while rSC patients (n=21) exhibit reduced integration and lower signed center distance (SCD) values in separation-integration trajectories; a cTBI validation cohort (n=25) shows negative SCD. Machine learning on these early features achieves optimal classification among HC, rSC, and cTBI groups, positioning the approach as superior to fMRI for early rSC diagnosis.

Significance. If the group differences and classification results prove robust under standard statistical scrutiny, the work could establish a high-temporal-resolution EEG biomarker for rSC that captures millisecond-scale pre-configuration dynamics missed by slower modalities. The comparative design with cTBI patients and use of dynamic hierarchical features plus SCD trajectories represent strengths that could support mechanistic differentiation of reversible versus irreversible injury. However, the current absence of quantitative metrics substantially limits evaluability and immediate translational value.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract and Results: The claims of 'significantly impaired dynamic features' in rSC and 'optimal performance' in ML classification are unsupported by any p-values, effect sizes, accuracy/AUC metrics, cross-validation details, or power analysis, preventing assessment of whether the reported 0-100 ms integration drop and SCD differences are statistically reliable or clinically meaningful.
  2. Methods: The visual attention task is described without any reported analysis or covariate adjustment for attention performance, reaction time, task compliance, or medication status, despite these factors being established confounders of early (0-100 ms) EEG integration and SCD measures; this directly undermines the specific attribution to rSC-induced 'pre-configuration failure' rather than general cognitive or engagement differences.
  3. Results (sample and ML sections): With modest cohorts (24 HC, 21 rSC) and high-dimensional EEG features fed into ML, the lack of explicit cross-validation strategy, regularization, feature-selection protocol, or out-of-sample generalization metrics means the classification success cannot be evaluated as evidence for the central predictor claim and risks overfitting.
minor comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The operational definition of 'early preconfiguration failure' and how SCD is computed from separation-integration trajectories should be stated explicitly rather than left implicit.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback, which highlights important areas for improving the statistical transparency, methodological rigor, and robustness of our claims. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested enhancements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and Results: The claims of 'significantly impaired dynamic features' in rSC and 'optimal performance' in ML classification are unsupported by any p-values, effect sizes, accuracy/AUC metrics, cross-validation details, or power analysis, preventing assessment of whether the reported 0-100 ms integration drop and SCD differences are statistically reliable or clinically meaningful.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative statistical support is necessary to substantiate the claims of group differences and classification performance. The manuscript describes the observed patterns in integration, rebound dynamics, and SCD trajectories, but we will add explicit p-values (from t-tests or non-parametric equivalents with multiple-comparison correction), effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d or eta-squared), and for the machine-learning results, accuracy, AUC, F1-score, along with cross-validation details and any post-hoc power analysis. These metrics will be inserted into the revised abstract, results, and a new supplementary table to allow full evaluation of reliability and clinical relevance. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Methods: The visual attention task is described without any reported analysis or covariate adjustment for attention performance, reaction time, task compliance, or medication status, despite these factors being established confounders of early (0-100 ms) EEG integration and SCD measures; this directly undermines the specific attribution to rSC-induced 'pre-configuration failure' rather than general cognitive or engagement differences.

    Authors: We acknowledge that task performance and related factors are potential confounders for early EEG measures. The visual attention task was a standardized paradigm applied identically across cohorts, but performance metrics were not previously reported. In revision we will add group-level comparisons of reaction time, accuracy, and compliance rates (with statistical tests), and if available, medication status. Should no significant between-group differences emerge, this will support the attribution to pre-configuration dynamics; otherwise we will include covariate adjustment or discuss limitations. These additions will appear in the methods and results sections. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Results (sample and ML sections): With modest cohorts (24 HC, 21 rSC) and high-dimensional EEG features fed into ML, the lack of explicit cross-validation strategy, regularization, feature-selection protocol, or out-of-sample generalization metrics means the classification success cannot be evaluated as evidence for the central predictor claim and risks overfitting.

    Authors: We recognize the overfitting risk inherent to modest sample sizes and high-dimensional EEG features. The manuscript reports classification results but omits pipeline details. In the revision we will fully specify the ML workflow, including the cross-validation approach (e.g., stratified 5-fold or leave-one-out), regularization (L1/L2 or dropout), feature-selection protocol (e.g., statistical filtering or recursive elimination), and out-of-sample metrics such as AUC with bootstrapped confidence intervals. These clarifications will be added to the results and methods to demonstrate generalization and address the central predictor claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical group comparisons and feature-based ML classification are self-contained

full rationale

The paper measures EEG-derived integration levels, rebound dynamics, and signed center distance (SCD) trajectories in 0-100 ms, 100-200 ms, and 200-600 ms windows during a visual attention task, then reports statistically lower values in the rSC cohort versus HC and negative SCD in cTBI. These quantities are computed directly from the recorded signals and are not defined in terms of the target label 'pre-configuration failure.' The ML classifier is trained on the same early cortical features to separate the three groups; this is a standard supervised prediction step, not a fitted parameter renamed as an independent prediction. No equations, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to force the interpretation, and the abstract supplies no ansatz or renaming of prior results. The derivation chain therefore terminates in external data rather than looping back to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides insufficient detail for exhaustive audit. Time windows (0-100 ms, 100-200 ms, 200-600 ms) appear chosen rather than derived. The concept of pre-configuration dynamics is framed as novel but rests on standard EEG assumptions.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption EEG signals capture millisecond-scale cortical integration and separation dynamics during visual tasks
    Implicitly invoked to justify the chosen time windows and SCD measure; standard in EEG literature but not proven within the paper.
invented entities (1)
  • early preconfiguration failure no independent evidence
    purpose: To interpret reduced early integration and SCD values as a specific mechanistic deficit in rSC patients
    New framing introduced to link observed EEG patterns to repetitive subconcussion; no independent falsifiable evidence supplied in abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5538 in / 1484 out tokens · 81598 ms · 2026-05-08T09:01:02.218817+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., Morrison, L

    Zelnick, L. R., Morrison, L. J., Devlin, S. M., Bulger, E. M., Brasel, K. J., Sheehan, K., Minei, J. P., Kerby, J. D., Tisherman, S. A., Rizoli, S., Karmy-Jones, R., van Heest, R., Newgard, C. D., and Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators (2014). Addressing the challenges of obtaining functional outcomes in traumatic brain injury research: missi...

    work page doi:10.1089/neu.2013.3122 2014

  2. [2]

    E., Petraglia, A

    Bailes, J. E., Petraglia, A. L., Omalu, B. I., Nauman, E., and Talavage, T. (2013). Role of subconcussion in repetitive mild traumatic brain injury. J. Neurosurg. 119, 1235–1245. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.7.JNS121822

    work page doi:10.3171/2013.7.jns121822 2013

  3. [3]

    Ru, D., Zhang, J., Wei, L., Zhang, Z., Wang, Y., Zhou, F., Wu, G., Yuan, Q., Du, Z., Wang, E., and Hu, J. (2024). Clinical Insights Into Default Mode Network Abnormalities in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: Unraveling Axonal Injury Through Functional, Structural, and Molecular Analyses. CNS Neurosci. Ther. 30, e70188. https://doi.org/10.1111/cns.70188

    work page doi:10.1111/cns.70188 2024

  4. [4]

    A., Friedman, A., Veksler, R., Molloy, M

    O'Keeffe, E., Kelly, E., Liu, Y., Giordano, C., Wallace, E., Hynes, M., Tiernan, S., Meagher, A., Greene, C., Hughes, S., Burke, T., Kealy, J., Doyle, N., Hay, A., Farrell, M., Grant, G. A., Friedman, A., Veksler, R., Molloy, M. G., Meaney, J. F., Pender, N., Camarillo, D., Doherty, P. C., and Campbell, M. (2020). Dynamic blood-brain barrier regulation in...

    work page doi:10.1089/neu.2019.6483 2020

  5. [5]

    C., Stern, R

    McKee, A. C., Stern, R. A., Nowinski, C. J., Stein, T. D., Alvarez, V. E., Daneshvar, D. H., Lee, H. S., Wojtowicz, S. M., Hall, G., Baugh, C. M., Riley, D. O., Kubilus, C. A., Cormier, K. A., Jacobs, M. A., Martin, B. R., Abraham, C. R., Ikezu, T., Reichard, R. R., Wolozin, B. L., Budson, A. E., 16 Goldstein, L. E., Kowall, N. W., and Cantu, R. C. (2013)...

    work page doi:10.1093/brain/aws307 2013

  6. [6]

    B., Gravel, J., Gagnon, I., McGahern, C., Aglipay, M., Sangha, G., Boutis, K., and Beer, D., et al

    Zemek, R., Barrowman, N., Freedman, S. B., Gravel, J., Gagnon, I., McGahern, C., Aglipay, M., Sangha, G., Boutis, K., and Beer, D., et al. (2016). Clinical risk score for persistent postconcussion symptoms among children with acute concussion in the ED. JAMA 315, 1014–1025. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.1203

    work page doi:10.1001/jama.2016.1203 2016

  7. [7]

    Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin. Neurophysiol. 118, 2128–2148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019 2007

  8. [8]

    Gaetz, M., and Weinberg, H. (2000). Electrophysiological indices of persistent post -concussion symptoms. Brain Inj. 14, 815–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/026990500421921

    work page doi:10.1080/026990500421921 2000

  9. [9]

    J., Matthews, N., Qiu, Z., Filmer, H

    Fox, A. J., Matthews, N., Qiu, Z., Filmer, H. L., and Dux, P. E. (2024). On the lasting impact of mild traumatic brain injury on working memory: behavioural and electrophysiological evidence. Neuropsychologia 204, 109005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2024.109005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2024.109005 2024

  10. [10]

    L., Lee, E

    Lew, H. L., Lee, E. H., Pan, S. S., and Date, E. S. (2004). Electrophysiologic abnormalities of auditory and visual information processing in patients with traumatic brain injury. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 83, 428–433. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-200406000-00004

    work page doi:10.1097/00002060-200406000-00004 2004

  11. [11]

    K., Huntgeburth, S

    Gosselin, N., Bottari, C., Chen, J. K., Huntgeburth, S. C., De Beaumont, L., Petrides, M., Cheung, B., and Ptito, A. (2012). Evaluating the cognitive consequences of mild traumatic brain injury and concussion by using electrophysiology. Neurosurg. Focus 33, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.10.FOCUS12253

    work page doi:10.3171/2012.10.focus12253 2012

  12. [12]

    Friston, K. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 360, 815–836. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1622

    work page doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1622 2005

  13. [13]

    D., Krasnow, B., Reiss, A

    Greicius, M. D., Krasnow, B., Reiss, A. L., and Menon, V. (2003). Functional connectivity in the resting brain: a network analysis of the default mode hypothesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0135058100

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0135058100 2003

  14. [14]

    D., Snyder, A

    Fox, M. D., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D. C., and Raichle, M. E. (2005). The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 9673–9678. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0504136102

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0504136102 2005

  15. [15]

    J., Scott, G., and Leech, R

    Sharp, D. J., Scott, G., and Leech, R. (2014). Network dysfunction after traumatic brain injury. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 10, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.15

    work page doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2014.15 2014

  16. [16]

    Mawdsley, E., Reynolds, B., and Cullen, B. (2021). A systematic review of the effectiveness of machine learning for predicting psychosocial outcomes in acquired brain injury: which algorithms are used and why?. J. Neuropsychol. 15, 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12244

    work page doi:10.1111/jnp.12244 2021

  17. [17]

    S., Rombouts, S

    Damoiseaux, J. S., Rombouts, S. A., Barkhof, F., Scheltens, P., Stam, C. J., Smith, S. M., and Beckmann, C. F. (2006). Consistent resting-state networks across healthy subjects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 13848–13853. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601417103

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0601417103 2006

  18. [18]

    L., Spronk, M., Kulkarni, K., Repovš, G., Anticevic, A., and Cole, M

    Ji, J. L., Spronk, M., Kulkarni, K., Repovš, G., Anticevic, A., and Cole, M. W. (2019). Mapping the human brain's cortical-subcortical functional network organization. NeuroImage 185, 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.006 2019

  19. [19]

    R., & D'Esposito, M

    Cohen, J. R., & D'Esposito, M. (2016). The Segregation and Integration of Distinct Brain Networks and Their Relationship to Cognition. Frontiers in Human J. Neurosci. 36, 12083–12094. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2965-15.2016

    work page doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2965-15.2016 2016

  20. [20]

    Zhang, Y., Ye, G., Zeng, W., Zhu, R., Li, C., Zhu, Y., Li, D., Liu, J., Wang, W., Li, P., Fan, L., Wang, R., and Niu, X. (2025). Segregation and integration of resting-state brain networks in a longitudinal long COVID cohort. iScience 28, 112237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.112237

    work page doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.112237 2025

  21. [21]

    A., Hudetz, A

    Jang, H., Mashour, G. A., Hudetz, A. G., and Huang, Z. (2024). Measuring the dynamic balance of integration and segregation underlying consciousness, anesthesia, and sleep in humans. Nat. Commun. 15, 9164. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53299-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53299-x 2024

  22. [22]

    Wang, R., Liu, M., Cheng, X., Wu, Y., Hildebrandt, A., and Zhou, C. (2021). Segregation, integration, and balance of large-scale resting brain networks configure different cognitive abilities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2022288118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022288118

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2022288118 2021

  23. [23]

    Y., Agres, P

    Han, L., Chan, M. Y., Agres, P. F., Winter-Nelson, E., Zhang, Z., and Wig, G. S. (2024). Measures of resting-state brain network segregation and integration vary in relation to data quantity: implications for within and between subject comparisons of functional brain network organization. Cereb. Cortex 34, bhad506. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhad506

    work page doi:10.1093/cercor/bhad506 2024

  24. [24]

    Polich, J. (2004). Clinical application of the P300 event-related brain potential. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 15, 133–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1047-9651(03)00109-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s1047-9651(03)00109-8 2004

  25. [25]

    Tagliazucchi, E., and Laufs, H. (2014). Decoding wakefulness levels from typical fMRI resting-state 17 data reveals reliable drifts between wakefulness and sleep. Neuron 82, 695–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.03.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.03.020 2014

  26. [26]

    Senior, M. (2025). Precision neuroscience. Nat. Biotechnol. 43, 659–664. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02673-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41587-025-02673-1 2025

  27. [27]

    Das, S., Yi, W., Ding, M., and Mangun, G. R. (2023). Optimizing cognitive neuroscience experiments for separating event-related fMRI BOLD responses in non-randomized alternating designs. Front. Neuroimaging 2, 1068616. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnimg.2023.1068616

    work page doi:10.3389/fnimg.2023.1068616 2023

  28. [28]

    Dragoi, G. (2024). The generative grammar of the brain: a critique of internally generated representations. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 25, 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-023-00763-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41583-023-00763-0 2024

  29. [29]

    E., Bullmore, E

    Akarca, D., Vé rtes, P. E., Bullmore, E. T., CALM team, and Astle, D. E. (2021). A generative network model of neurodevelopmental diversity in structural brain organization. Nat. Commun. 12,

    2021

  30. [30]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24430-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24430-z

  31. [31]

    Guo, Y., Xu, S., Nie, S., Han, M., Zhang, Y., Chen, J., Hou, X., Hong, Y., and Liu, X. (2019). Female versus male migraine: an event-related potential study of visual neurocognitive processing. J. Headache Pain 20, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-019-0995-y

    work page doi:10.1186/s10194-019-0995-y 2019

  32. [32]

    J., Bonnagio, T., Sellers, E

    Hedrick, M. J., Bonnagio, T., Sellers, E. W., and Clements, A. D. (2024). The cognitive tasks and event-related potentials associated childhood adversity: a systematic review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 158, 105573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105573

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105573 2024

  33. [33]

    C., McCormick, S

    Bowman, L. C., McCormick, S. A., Kane-Grade, F., Xie, W., Bosquet Enlow, M., and Nelson, C. A. (2022). Infants' neural responses to emotional faces are related to maternal anxiety. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 63, 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13429

    work page doi:10.1111/jcpp.13429 2022

  34. [34]

    Muthuraman, M., Bange, M., Koirala, N., Ciolac, D., Pintea, B., Glaser, M., Tinkhauser, G., Brown, P., Deuschl, G., and Groppa, S. (2020). Cross-frequency coupling between gamma oscillations and deep brain stimulation frequency in Parkinson's disease. Brain 143, 3393–3407. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awaa297

    work page doi:10.1093/brain/awaa297 2020

  35. [35]

    H., and Zoefel, B

    van Bree, S., Sohoglu, E., Davis, M. H., and Zoefel, B. (2021). Sustained neural rhythms reveal endogenous oscillations supporting speech perception. PLoS Biol. 19, e3001142. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001142

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001142 2021

  36. [36]

    Zoefel, B., Archer-Boyd, A., and Davis, M. H. (2018). Phase Entrainment of Brain Oscillations Causally Modulates Neural Responses to Intelligible Speech. Curr. Biol. 28, 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.11.071

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.11.071 2018

  37. [37]

    I., Herman, W

    Li, J., Kronemer, S. I., Herman, W. X., Kwon, H., Ryu, J. H., Micek, C., Wu, Y., Gerrard, J., Spencer, D. D., and Blumenfeld, H. (2019). Default mode and visual network activity in an attention task: direct measurement with intracranial EEG. NeuroImage 201, 116003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.07.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.07.016 2019

  38. [38]

    I., Christison-Lagay, K

    Kwon, H., Kronemer, S. I., Christison-Lagay, K. L., Khalaf, A., Li, J., Ding, J. Z., Freedman, N. C., and Blumenfeld, H. (2021). Early cortical signals in visual stimulus detection. NeuroImage 244, 118608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118608

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118608 2021

  39. [39]

    Rawlings, S., Takechi, R., and Lavender, A. P. (2020). Effects of sub-concussion on neuropsychological performance and its potential mechanisms: a narrative review. Brain Res. Bull. 165, 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2020.09.021. 39. Gao, G., Wu, X., Feng, J., Hui, J., Mao, Q., Lecky, F., Lingsma, H., Maas, A. I. R., Jiang, J., and China C...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brainresbull.2020.09.021 2020

  40. [40]

    D., Carroll, L., Cô té , P., Holm, L., and Nygren, A

    Cassidy, J. D., Carroll, L., Cô té , P., Holm, L., and Nygren, A. (2004). Mild traumatic brain injury after traffic collisions: a population-based inception cohort study. J. Rehabil. Med. 43, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/16501960410023688

    work page doi:10.1080/16501960410023688 2004

  41. [41]

    M., Ros, T., and Nahas, R

    Buchanan, D. M., Ros, T., and Nahas, R. (2021). Elevated and Slowed EEG Oscillations in Patients with Post-Concussive Syndrome and Chronic Pain Following a Motor Vehicle Collision . Brain Sci. 11, 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11050537

    work page doi:10.3390/brainsci11050537 2021

  42. [42]

    R., Iverson, G

    Lovell, M. R., Iverson, G. L., Collins, M. W., Podell, K., Johnston, K. M., Pardini, D., Pardini, J., Norwig, J., and Maroon, J. C. (2006). Measurement of symptoms following sports -related concussion: reliability and normative data for the post-concussion scale. Appl. Neuropsychol. 13, 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324826an1303_4

    work page doi:10.1207/s15324826an1303_4 2006

  43. [43]

    F., and Quinn, D

    [dataset] Cavanagh, J. F., and Quinn, D. (2021). EEG: Three-Stim Auditory Oddball and Rest in Acute and Chronic TBI. OpenNeuro. https://doi.org/10.18112/openneuro.ds003522.v1.1.0. 18

    work page doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds003522.v1.1.0 2021

  44. [44]

    M., Johnstone, T., Walter, H., Erk, S., and Veer, I

    Baczkowski, B. M., Johnstone, T., Walter, H., Erk, S., and Veer, I. M. (2017). Sliding -window analysis tracks fluctuations in amygdala functional connectivity associated with physiological arousal and vigilance during fear conditioning. NeuroImage 153, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.022 2017

  45. [45]

    Zhuang, X., Yang, Z., Mishra, V., Sreenivasan, K., Bernick, C., and Cordes, D. (2020). Single -scale time-dependent window-sizes in sliding-window dynamic functional connectivity analysis: a validation study. NeuroImage 220, 117111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117111

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117111 2020

  46. [46]

    Constantin and W

    Lachaux, J. P., Rodriguez, E., Martinerie, J., and Varela, F. J. (1999). Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals. Hum. Brain Mapp. 8, 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097- 0193(1999)8:4<194::AID-HBM4>3.0.CO;2-C

    work page doi:10.1002/(sici)1097- 1999

  47. [47]

    Mü ller-Komorowska, D., Kuru, B., Beck, H., and Braganza, O. (2023). Phase information is conserved in sparse, synchronous population-rate-codes via phase-to-rate recoding. Nat. Commun. 14, 6106. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41803-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-41803-8 2023

  48. [48]

    Aydore, S., Pantazis, D., and Leahy, R. M. (2013). A note on the phase locking value and its properties. NeuroImage 74, 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.02.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.02.008 2013

  49. [49]

    F., McMillan, M

    Sarmukadam, K., Bitsika, V., Sharpley, C. F., McMillan, M. M. E., and Agnew, L. L. (2020). Comparing different EEG connectivity methods in young males with ASD. Behav. Brain Res. 383, 112482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112482

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112482 2020

  50. [50]

    Zhou, L., Xie, Y., Wang, R., Fan, Y., and Wu, Y. (2023). Dynamic segregation and integration of brain functional networks associated with emotional arousal. iScience 26, 106609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.106609

    work page doi:10.1016/j.isci.2023.106609 2023

  51. [51]

    A., Montanaro, E., Imbalzano, G., Rizzone, M

    Romagnolo, A., Zibetti, M., Lenzi, M., Vighetti, S., Pongmala, C., Artusi, C. A., Montanaro, E., Imbalzano, G., Rizzone, M. G., and Lopiano, L. (2021). Low frequency subthalamic stimulation and event-related potentials in Parkinson disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 82, 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2020.12.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2020.12.007 2021

  52. [52]

    Wang, R., Su, X., Chang, Z., Lin, P., and Wu, Y. (2022). Flexible Brain Transitions Between Hierarchical Network Segregation and Integration Associated With Cognitive Performance During a Multisource Interference Task. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 26, 1835–1846. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2021.3119940

    work page doi:10.1109/jbhi.2021.3119940 2022

  53. [53]

    Wang, R., Lin, P., Liu, M., Wu, Y., Zhou, T., and Zhou, C. (2019). Hierarchical Connectome Modes and Critical State Jointly Maximize Human Brain Functional Diversity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 038301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.038301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.038301 2019

  54. [54]

    Pang, T., Zhao, S., Han, J., Zhang, S., Guo, L., and Liu, T. (2022). Gumbel -softmax based neural architecture search for hierarchical brain networks decomposition. Med. Image Anal. 82, 102570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2022.102570

    work page doi:10.1016/j.media.2022.102570 2022

  55. [55]

    F., Medaglia, J

    Betzel, R. F., Medaglia, J. D., Papadopoulos, L., Baum, G. L., Gur, R., Gur, R., Roalf, D., Satterthwaite, T. D., and Bassett, D. S. (2017). The modular organization of human anatomical brain networks: accounting for the cost of wiring. Netw. Neurosci. 1, 42–68. https://doi.org/10.1162/netn_a_00002

    work page doi:10.1162/netn_a_00002 2017

  56. [56]

    Zhang, W., Tang, F., Zhou, X., and Li, H. (2020). Dynamic reconfiguration of functional topology in human brain networks: from resting to task states. Neural Plast. 2020, 8837615. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8837615

    work page doi:10.1155/2020/8837615 2020

  57. [57]

    Dong, D., Duan, M., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., Jia, X., Li, Y., Xin, F., Yao, D., and Luo, C. (2019). Reconfiguration of dynamic functional connectivity in sensory and perceptual system in schizophrenia. Cereb. Cortex 29, 3577–3589. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy232

    work page doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy232 2019

  58. [58]

    Spens, E., and Burgess, N. (2024). A generative model of memory construction and consolidation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 526–543. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01799-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01799-z 2024

  59. [59]

    F., Tung, R., Li, J

    McCafferty, C., Gruenbaum, B. F., Tung, R., Li, J. J., Zheng, X., Salvino, P., Vincent, P., Kratochvil, Z., Ryu, J. H., Khalaf, A., Swift, K., Akbari, R., Islam, W., Antwi, P., Johnson, E. A., Vitkovskiy, P., Sampognaro, J., Freedman, I. G., Kundishora, A., Depaulis, A., et al. (2023). Decreased but diverse activity of cortical and thalamic neurons in con...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-35535-4 2023

  60. [60]

    I., Christison-Lagay, K., Kwon, H., Li, J., Wu, K., and Blumenfeld, H

    Khalaf, A., Kronemer, S. I., Christison-Lagay, K., Kwon, H., Li, J., Wu, K., and Blumenfeld, H. (2023). Early neural activity changes associated with stimulus detection during visual conscious perception. Cereb. Cortex 33, 1347–1360. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac140

    work page doi:10.1093/cercor/bhac140 2023

  61. [61]

    P., Maloney-Bertelli, A., Kuchenbecker, J

    Pandiyan, V. P., Maloney-Bertelli, A., Kuchenbecker, J. A., Boyle, K. C., Ling, T., Chen, Z. C., Park, B. H., Roorda, A., Palanker, D., and Sabesan, R. (2020). The optoretinogram reveals the primary steps of phototransduction in the living human eye. Sci. Adv. 6, eabc1124. 19 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc1124

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc1124 2020

  62. [62]

    J., Szarka, G., Ganczer, A., Szabó-Meleg, E., Nyitrai, M., Ková cs-Öller, T., and Vö lgyi, B

    Tengö lics, Á. J., Szarka, G., Ganczer, A., Szabó-Meleg, E., Nyitrai, M., Ková cs-Öller, T., and Vö lgyi, B. (2019). Response Latency Tuning by Retinal Circuits Modulates Signal Efficiency. Sci. Rep. 9, 15110. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51756-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-019-51756-y 2019

  63. [63]

    J., Reilly, R

    Youssofzadeh, V., Prasad, G., Fagan, A. J., Reilly, R. B., Martens, S., Meaney, J. F., and Wong -Lin, K. (2015). Signal Propagation in the Human Visual Pathways: An Effective Connectivity Analysis. J. Neurosci. 35, 13501–13510. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2269-15.2015

    work page doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2269-15.2015 2015

  64. [64]

    Gwilliams, L., and King, J. R. (2020). Recurrent processes support a cascade of hierarchical decisions. eLife 9, e56603. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56603

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.56603 2020

  65. [65]

    J., Labache, L., Nachev, P., Thiebaut de Schotten, M., and Hesling, I

    Forkel, S. J., Labache, L., Nachev, P., Thiebaut de Schotten, M., and Hesling, I. (2022). Stroke disconnectome decodes reading networks. Brain Struct. Funct. 227, 2897–2908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-022-02575-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00429-022-02575-x 2022

  66. [66]

    Xu, Y. (2023). Parietal-driven visual working memory representation in occipito-temporal cortex. Curr. Biol. 33, 4516–4523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.08.080

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cub.2023.08.080 2023

  67. [67]

    W., Yarkoni, T., Repovš, G., Anticevic, A., and Braver, T

    Cole, M. W., Yarkoni, T., Repovš, G., Anticevic, A., and Braver, T. S. (2012). Global Connectivity of Prefrontal Cortex Predicts Cognitive Control and Intelligence. J. Neurosci. 32, 8988–8999. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0536-12.2012

    work page doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0536-12.2012 2012

  68. [68]

    Ren, Z., Zhang, Y., He, H., Feng, Q., Bi, T., and Qiu, J. (2019). The different brain mechanisms of object and spatial working memory: Voxel-based morphometry and resting-state functional connectivity. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 13, 248. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00248

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00248 2019

  69. [69]

    Nee, D. E. (2021). Integrative frontal-parietal dynamics supporting cognitive control. eLife 10, e57244. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57244

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.57244 2021

  70. [70]

    F., Ross, O

    Bieniek, K. F., Ross, O. A., Cormier, K. A., Walton, R. L., Soto-Ortolaza, A., Johnston, A. E., DeSaro, P., Boylan, K. B., Graff-Radford, N. R., and Wszolek, Z. K., et al. (2015). Chronic traumatic encephalopathy pathology in a neurodegenerative disorders brain bank. Acta Neuropathol. 130, 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-015-1502-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s00401-015-1502-4 2015

  71. [71]

    Y., Lecky, F., Menon, D

    Czeiter, E., Amrein, K., Gravesteijn, B. Y., Lecky, F., Menon, D. K., Mondello, S., Newcombe, V. F. J., Richter, S., Steyerberg, E. W., Vyvere, T. V., Verheyden, J., Xu, H., Yang, Z., Maas, A. I. R., Wang, K. K. W., Bü ki, A., and CENTER-TBI Participants and Investigators (2020). Blood biomarkers on admission in acute traumatic brain injury: Relations to ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102785 2020

  72. [72]

    L., van der Merwe, A

    Shahim, P., Pham, D. L., van der Merwe, A. J., Moore, B., Chou, Y. -Y., Lippa, S. M., Kenney, K., Diaz-Arrastia, R., and Chan, L. (2024). Serum NfL and GFAP as biomarkers of progressive neurodegeneration in TBI. Alzheimers Dement. 20, 4663–4676. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13898

    work page doi:10.1002/alz.13898 2024

  73. [73]

    Jamjoom, A. A. B., Rhodes, J., Andrews, P. J. D., and Grant, S. G. N. (2021). The synapse in traumatic brain injury. Brain 144, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awaa321

    work page doi:10.1093/brain/awaa321 2021

  74. [74]

    A., Zetterberg, H., Granberg, T., Svenningsson, P., Piehl, F., and Thelin, E

    Friberg, S., Lindblad, C., Zeiler, F. A., Zetterberg, H., Granberg, T., Svenningsson, P., Piehl, F., and Thelin, E. P. (2024). Fluid biomarkers of chronic traumatic brain injury. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 20, 671–

    2024

  75. [75]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-024-01024-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41582-024-01024-z

  76. [76]

    M., Bissett, P

    Shine, J. M., Bissett, P. G., Bell, P. T., Koyejo, O., Balsters, J. H., Gorgolewski, K. J., Moodie, C. A., and Poldrack, R. A. (2016). The Dynamics of Functional Brain Networks: Integrated Network States during Cognitive Task Performance. Neuron 92, 544–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.09.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.09.018 2016

  77. [77]

    Cortes, C., and Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 20, 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022627411411

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1022627411411 1995

  78. [78]

    Convexity, classification, and risk bounds

    Bartlett, P. L., Jordan, M. I., and McAuliffe, J. D. (2006). Convexity, classification, and risk bounds. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 101, 138–156. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214505000000907

    work page doi:10.1198/016214505000000907 2006

  79. [79]

    Zeng, Y., Tao, F., Cui, Z., Wu, L., Xu, J., Dong, W., Liu, C., Yang, Z., and Qin, S. (2021). Dynamic integration and segregation of amygdala subregional functional circuits linking to physiological arousal. NeuroImage 238, 118224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118224

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118224 2021

  80. [80]

    Rolls, E. T. (2024). The memory systems of the human brain and generative artificial intelligence. Heliyon 10, e31965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31965

    work page doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31965 2024

Showing first 80 references.