RD PascualMarqui
@pascualmarqui.bsky.social
KEY Inst Brain-Mind Research @UniZurich
neuroscience imaging connectivity EEG MEG oscillations
+LORETA+
Lagged Coherence/PhaseSynch
Multivar/HiOrder InfoFlow
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pascual-marqui
https://www.uzh.ch/keyinst/
neuroscience imaging connectivity EEG MEG oscillations
+LORETA+
Lagged Coherence/PhaseSynch
Multivar/HiOrder InfoFlow
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pascual-marqui
https://www.uzh.ch/keyinst/
asking for a friend, a follow-up question: should citational exclusion be practiced on all journals that make obscene profit?
October 22, 2025 at 9:59 AM
asking for a friend, a follow-up question: should citational exclusion be practiced on all journals that make obscene profit?
Reposted by RD PascualMarqui
Academia is supposed to be an open environment where people can disagree with each other, but people are happy to keep your work invisible if they disagree with some minor thing. I suspect many rejected papers are perfectly fine and rejection is wasting everyone's time and mental health.
October 15, 2025 at 10:39 AM
Academia is supposed to be an open environment where people can disagree with each other, but people are happy to keep your work invisible if they disagree with some minor thing. I suspect many rejected papers are perfectly fine and rejection is wasting everyone's time and mental health.
Agree. A definition (my favorite) was given by Worsley et al; Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2005, 360, 913-920. doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1637
It is based on "similarity of activity signals": two signals cannot be similar by chance. But that's all, no info on interpretation by itself.
It is based on "similarity of activity signals": two signals cannot be similar by chance. But that's all, no info on interpretation by itself.
October 8, 2025 at 8:21 PM
Agree. A definition (my favorite) was given by Worsley et al; Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2005, 360, 913-920. doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1637
It is based on "similarity of activity signals": two signals cannot be similar by chance. But that's all, no info on interpretation by itself.
It is based on "similarity of activity signals": two signals cannot be similar by chance. But that's all, no info on interpretation by itself.
Reminds me of paper in eLife by Frank et al: "Imaging of brain electric field networks with spatially resolved EEG." 2025-Jun. doi:10.7554/eLife.100123.3
with electric field networks at 1mm resolution from 61 EEG electrodes.
"The code supporting the findings of this study is protected by patent"
with electric field networks at 1mm resolution from 61 EEG electrodes.
"The code supporting the findings of this study is protected by patent"
Imaging of brain electric field networks with spatially resolved EEG
A physics-based solution to the electroencephalography (EEG) inverse problem enables whole-brain electric field imaging with high spatial and temporal resolution using standard EEG systems.
doi.org
September 25, 2025 at 8:11 PM
Reminds me of paper in eLife by Frank et al: "Imaging of brain electric field networks with spatially resolved EEG." 2025-Jun. doi:10.7554/eLife.100123.3
with electric field networks at 1mm resolution from 61 EEG electrodes.
"The code supporting the findings of this study is protected by patent"
with electric field networks at 1mm resolution from 61 EEG electrodes.
"The code supporting the findings of this study is protected by patent"
the authors mention "how can we bridge across spatial scales". i think the work of Jaan Aru (some cited there) is relevant to your very justified question. (@jaanaru.bsky.social)
September 22, 2025 at 3:41 PM
the authors mention "how can we bridge across spatial scales". i think the work of Jaan Aru (some cited there) is relevant to your very justified question. (@jaanaru.bsky.social)