Quantifying Entrainment Evidence: A Comparison of Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches for Information Processing Pathway Maps

Andrew Thwaites; Chao Zhang; Ji Wu; Kaibo Zhang

arxiv: 2607.06284 · v1 · pith:MZTYQCDO · submitted 2026-07-07 · q-bio.NC · stat.AP

Quantifying Entrainment Evidence: A Comparison of Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches for Information Processing Pathway Maps

Kaibo Zhang , Ji Wu , Chao Zhang , Andrew Thwaites This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith2026-07-08 10:50 UTCglm-5.2pith:MZTYQCDO open to challenge →

classification q-bio.NC stat.AP PACS 87.19.le87.19.lj

keywords bayesiancomputationalevidencefrequentistmapsneuralpathwayapproaches

0 comments

The pith

Bayesian brain maps beat p-values—but only with the right priors

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

The paper asks whether Information Processing Pathway Maps (IPPMs)—directed graphs that chart which computational transforms the cortex applies to sensory input and at what latency—should be built using Bayesian model comparison instead of the frequentist null-hypothesis testing they have always used. The authors recast IPPM node selection as a closed-space Bayesian comparison: each candidate transform (plus a null) gets a prior and a Gaussian-noise likelihood, and the posterior probability replaces the p-value as the measure of entrainment evidence. They test both frameworks on an auditory EMEG dataset, attempting to reconstruct the well-characterized Glasberg-Moore loudness pathway (nine frequency channels, an instantaneous-loudness integration, and a short-term-loudness smoothing stage). The frequentist map recovers the known nodes at 45, 100, 165, and 275 ms. The Bayesian map, run with uniform priors and a simple Gaussian likelihood, partially converges—recovering short-term loudness and some channel-level nodes—but also produces physiologically impossible pre-stimulus entrainment (before 0 ms) and drops the 180 ms combined-loudness node. The authors attribute these failures to the naive prior and likelihood, not to the Bayesian framework itself, and argue that physiologically informed priors and hierarchical noise models would close the gap. The paper's central conceptual contribution is the argument that Bayesian probability-mass competition among collinear candidate models is a better adjudication mechanism than independent significance tests, because it naturally penalizes redundant hypotheses.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that Bayesian and frequentist IPPM expression plots broadly converge when priors are uniform and signal-to-noise is high—because the posterior is then proportional to the likelihood—but diverge in two systematic ways: (1) the Bayesian framework's closed hypothesis space forces probability mass to be shared among collinear transforms (neighboring frequency channels that make similar predictions dilute each other's posterior), while the frequentist approach independently flags all of them as significant; and (2) without a physiologically motivated prior, the Bayesian model overfits noise correlations, producing pre-stimulus false positives and missing the 180ms

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Bayesian expression plot: for each candidate transform Hi and each latency l, the framework computes P(Hi | D, l) under a Gaussian-noise likelihood with uniform priors across a closed hypothesis space H = {H0, H1, ..., Hn}. The posterior probabilities compete for a fixed unit of probability mass, so collinear models dilute each other. The automated IPPM inference procedure (Lakra et al., 2025) then reads node positions and latencies from whichever transform maximizes posterior probability at each cortical location and time point.

If this is right

If physiologically informed priors (e.g., Gaussian priors centered on known cortical latencies) are successfully integrated, Bayesian IPPMs could allow evidence to accumulate across experiments—today's posterior becoming tomorrow's prior—turning isolated cortical-mapping studies into a cumulative atlas.
The probability-dilution effect among collinear models could resolve a known ambiguity in frequentist IPPMs where multiple similar transforms are all flagged as significant, by forcing explicit adjudication among them.
The framework's ability to marginalize over nuisance parameters (noise variance, signal amplitude) could, with appropriate hierarchical regularization, produce model comparisons that account for structured M/EEG noise (alpha oscillations, cardiac artifacts) rather than assuming homoscedastic Gaussian residuals.
If the marginal-likelihood hypersensitivity problem is solved with structured spatio-temporal priors, Bayesian IPPMs could be extended beyond the loudness pathway to complex linguistic or cross-modal transforms where frequentist null-hypothesis testing is increasingly indirect.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the poor performance of the Bayesian method—pre-stimulus false positives and a missing node—stems from the specific choice of uniform priors and a simple Gaussian likelihood, rather than from any deeper mismatch between Bayesian model comparison and the structure of EMEG entrainment data. This is load-bearing because the empirical finding is that the Bayesian map is worse than the frequentist map, yet the authors defend the framework by attributing all失

What would settle it

A future Bayesian IPPM implementation with physiologically informed priors and hierarchical noise regularization that still produces pre-stimulus entrainment or fails to recover the 180ms combined-loudness node would falsify the authors' claim that the framework's failures are implementation-specific rather than structural.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06284 by Andrew Thwaites, Chao Zhang, Ji Wu, Kaibo Zhang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: A comparison of the expression plots created with (a) frequentist and (b) Bayesian approaches. All 11 of the loudness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: A comparison of the IPPMs inferred from the expression plots in Figs 2a and 2b. The same latency x-axis, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Information Processing Pathway Maps (IPPMs) offer a scalable framework for formalizing the complex sequence of mathematical transformations applied to sensory stimuli. These maps chart the latency and cortical expression of computational steps, relying on statistical inference to link model outputs with observed neural activity. Traditionally, this mapping has relied on frequentist hypothesis testing. However, determining which of several competing computational models best explains neural data is a problem of model adjudication, arguably better suited to probabilistic inference. Here, we present a direct comparison between the established frequentist approach and a novel Bayesian framework for mapping cortical entrainment. While the Bayesian formulation retains the core strength of IPPMs -- generating explicit predictions of time-varying neural signals -- it fundamentally alters the selection criterion, shifting from rejecting a null hypothesis to quantifying the relative evidence for competing computational hypotheses. We evaluate the performance and interpretability of both approaches using an auditory neuroimaging dataset to reconstruct a known loudness-processing pathway. We discuss the implications of this shift for systems neuroscience, specifically regarding the handling of collinear models and the robust accumulation of evidence.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Bayesian reformulation of IPPM inference is a reasonable idea, but the paper has no working demonstration — every implementation tried produces artifacts or failures.

read the letter

The headline: this paper proposes casting IPPM construction as Bayesian model comparison, which is a legitimate and arguably natural reformulation. But every implementation they attempt fails to recover the known loudness pathway, and the paper never delivers a working demonstration. That's the thing to know going in. The stress-test concern is accurate on this point — it's not an exaggeration. Three approaches are tried: uniform priors with Gaussian likelihood (produces pre-stimulus artifacts and misses the 180ms IL node), literature-informed temporal priors (described as producing erratic patterns and probability collapse), and marginalized likelihood over amplitude/noise variance (posterior collapses to 0/1). None recover the known pathway. The authors attribute all failures to implementation rather than framework, but without a single positive empirical result, the feasibility claim rests entirely on theoretical assertion. The stress-test note's specific point about the dilution effect is also well-taken: the missing 180ms IL node likely reflects a structural property of closed-world Bayesian comparison with redundant collinear hypotheses (IL1–9 splitting probability mass), not a fixable prior-tuning problem. The authors describe this dilution effect in the Discussion but don't test whether hierarchical priors or model-family restructuring would resolve it. What's genuinely new here is the formalization of IPPM node selection as Bayesian model comparison over a closed hypothesis space. The conceptual framing — shifting from P(D|H0) to P(H|D) — is sound and the discussion of how collinear models interact differently under frequentist vs. Bayesian frameworks is genuinely useful. The frequentist vs. Bayesian expression plot comparison (Figure 2) is a fair side-by-side using the same data and preprocessing. The circularity concern (ground truth established via frequentist methods) is real but minor — the loudness pathway is well-replicated across independent cohorts, so it's a reasonable benchmark regardless of how it was originally identified. No code or data is shipped, which limits reproducibility. The paper is honest about its limitations — perhaps too honest, as it essentially concedes the central empirical failure. This is for methodologists in systems neuroscience who work with entrainment-based mapping. It reads like an early-stage feasibility report that needed either a working implementation or controlled simulations before submission. It deserves a serious referee because the core idea is worth engaging with, but the referee should push hard on the gap between the feasibility claim and the absence of any positive result.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes casting Information Processing Pathway Map (IPPM) construction as a Bayesian model comparison problem, replacing the frequentist null-hypothesis significance testing approach with posterior probability over a closed hypothesis space. The authors compare both approaches on an auditory EMEG dataset, attempting to reconstruct a known loudness-processing pathway (Glasberg-Moore model). The Bayesian implementation uses uniform priors and a Gaussian likelihood. Results show broad similarity between the two expression plots but also two specific failures of the Bayesian map: pre-stimulus (anti-causal) entrainment artifacts and a missing 180 ms combined instantaneous loudness node. The authors also describe pilot investigations with literature-informed temporal priors and marginalized likelihoods, both of which produced erratic results or posterior collapse. The paper is framed as a feasibility study rather than a demonstration of a working method.

Significance. The question of whether Bayesian model selection can improve on frequentist NHST for IPPM construction is well-motivated and timely. The authors deserve credit for transparency: they report the failures of their Bayesian implementations rather than hiding them, and they identify specific structural challenges (dilution effect, marginal likelihood hypersensitivity in high dimensions) that are genuinely informative for the field. The discussion of the 'Occam's razor' dilution effect in closed-world Bayesian comparison with redundant hypotheses is a useful conceptual contribution. However, the significance is substantially limited by the fact that no working Bayesian implementation is demonstrated — all three attempts (uniform priors, informed priors, marginalized likelihood) fail to recover the known pathway. The paper's framing as a 'feasibility study' is at tension with its title's promise of a 'comparison,' since the comparison is between a working method and a non-working one.

major comments (3)

The central claim is that a Bayesian framework can be used for IPPM construction (Abstract: 'We propose casting IPPM construction as a formal Bayesian model comparison problem'). However, every implementation attempted — uniform priors (Fig. 3b), literature-informed Gaussian temporal priors (§'Enhanced Model Explorations': 'erratic expression patterns'), and marginalized likelihood (§'Complexity and the Marginal Likelihood': posterior 'collapse into extreme values') — fails to recover the known loudness pathway. The authors attribute all failures to 'implementation' rather than 'framework,' but this distinction is not substantiated: they provide no implementation that works. For the central claim to hold, at least one implementation must produce a map that is not grossly inferior to the frequentist baseline. As it stands, the paper demonstrates that naive Bayesian implementations fail, a
The missing 180 ms combined instantaneous loudness (IL) node is particularly diagnostic. The authors attribute pre-stimulus artifacts to lack of causal constraints (§'Evaluating Model Fidelity': 'The Bayesian model, as implemented here with uniform priors, lacks this common sense constraint'), which is plausibly fixable. However, the missing IL node likely reflects the 'dilution effect' they describe in §'The Role of the Hypothesis Space': the nine collinear IL1–9 channels split probability mass, suppressing the combined IL posterior. If the dilution effect is the cause, no amount of prior tuning on latencies will fix it — the hypothesis space itself needs restructuring (e.g., hierarchical priors over model families). The authors should either (a) test this hypothesis directly by restructuring the hypothesis space, or (b) explicitly acknowledge that the dilution effect is a structural,
The Enhanced Model Explorations section (§'Enhanced Model Explorations') describes two additional Bayesian implementations that both failed, but provides no quantitative results, figures, or diagnostic metrics. The reader is told that literature-informed Gaussian temporal priors produced 'erratic expression patterns' and 'probability collapse,' and that marginalized likelihoods caused posteriors to 'collapse into extreme values (0 or 1),' but no expression plots, posterior traces, or sensitivity analyses are shown. These are the most theoretically principled approaches discussed, and their failure modes are the most informative for future work. Without any quantitative characterization, it is impossible for the reader to assess whether these failures are fundamental or merely engineering problems.

minor comments (6)

The circularity concern (§'Methodological Limitations': 'This introduces a risk of circularity in our model adjudication') is acknowledged but not deeply engaged with. The ground-truth pathway was established using the frequentist method being compared against, which means the frequentist approach has a structural advantage by construction. The authors should discuss whether any independent validation (not derived from frequentist IPPM methods) exists for the loudness pathway latencies, and if so, cite it to strengthen the section.
Figure 2: The Bayesian expression plot (panel b) appears to show pre-stimulus spikes, but the y-axis scale and posterior probability values are not clearly labeled. It would help to indicate the actual posterior probability values at the pre-stimulus spikes and at the missing 50 ms / 180 ms locations, so the reader can judge the magnitude of the failures.
The likelihood model is described as assuming 'a Gaussian noise distribution over the residual sum of squares' (§'Likelihood and Evidence Mapping'), but the precise mathematical form is not given. The paper would benefit from an explicit equation for P(D|H_i, l), including how the noise variance is set (fixed? estimated? marginalized?) for the baseline uniform-prior implementation.
§'Procedure': the automated IPPM inference procedure (Lakra et al., 2025) is applied to both expression plots, but it is unclear whether the inference algorithm was designed for p-value inputs and whether it requires adaptation for posterior probability inputs. The authors should clarify whether the same algorithm is appropriate for both.
Typo: 'wuji ee@tsinghua.edu.cn' in the author affiliations should likely be 'wuji_ee@tsinghua.edu.cn' or similar.
References to 'Thwaites et al. (2015)' in the Methodological Limitations section and 'Thwaites et al. (2017)' in the Experimental validation section both appear to refer to the dataset/pathway origin; the citation should be consistent.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies that our manuscript presents a feasibility study in which all three Bayesian implementations we attempted fail to recover the known loudness pathway as cleanly as the frequentist baseline. We agree with several of the referee's points and will revise the manuscript to (1) reframe the title and abstract to accurately reflect the feasibility-study nature of the work, (2) explicitly acknowledge the dilution effect as a structural limitation rather than an implementation issue, and (3) add quantitative diagnostic information for the failed enhanced model explorations. We respectfully disagree that the paper lacks value without a working Bayesian implementation: the conceptual contributions (the dilution/Occam's razor analysis, the marginal likelihood hypersensitivity finding) are genuinely informative for the field. However, we accept that the current framing oversells the results, and we will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim is that a Bayesian framework can be used for IPPM construction (Abstract: 'We propose casting IPPM construction as a formal Bayesian model comparison problem'). However, every implementation attempted — uniform priors, literature-informed Gaussian temporal priors, and marginalized likelihood — fails to recover the known loudness pathway. The authors attribute all failures to 'implementation' rather than 'framework,' but this distinction is not substantiated: they provide no implementation that works. For the central claim to hold, at least one implementation must produce a map that is not grossly inferior to the frequentist baseline.

Authors: We accept the substance of this comment. The referee is correct that without at least one working Bayesian implementation, we cannot substantiate the distinction between 'framework failure' and 'implementation failure.' We will revise the manuscript in three ways: (1) The title will be changed to reflect the feasibility-study framing, e.g., 'Toward Bayesian IPPMs: A Feasibility Study.' (2) The abstract will be revised to state explicitly that the Bayesian implementations we attempted did not recover the known pathway as cleanly as the frequentist baseline, and that the paper's contribution is the identification of specific structural challenges rather than a demonstration of a working method. (3) We will soften the claim about the framework/implementation distinction, acknowledging that without a working implementation, this distinction remains a hypothesis rather than a demonstrated result. That said, we respectfully maintain that the paper makes a genuine contribution by documenting the specific failure modes — the dilution effect and marginal likelihood hypersensitivity — which are informative for any future Bayesian IPPM effort, regardless of whether the framework itself is ultimately viable. revision: yes
Referee: The missing 180 ms combined instantaneous loudness (IL) node is particularly diagnostic. The authors attribute pre-stimulus artifacts to lack of causal constraints, which is plausibly fixable. However, the missing IL node likely reflects the 'dilution effect' they describe: the nine collinear IL1–9 channels split probability mass, suppressing the combined IL posterior. If the dilution effect is the cause, no amount of prior tuning on latencies will fix it — the hypothesis space itself needs restructuring (e.g., hierarchical priors over model families). The authors should either (a) test this hypothesis directly by restructuring the hypothesis space, or (b) explicitly acknowledge that the dilution effect is a structural, not implementation, limitation.

Authors: We agree with the referee's analysis. The missing IL node is indeed most parsimoniously explained by the dilution effect: the nine collinear IL1–9 channels compete for probability mass with the combined IL hypothesis, and since the combined IL is essentially the sum of IL1–9, its predictions are highly correlated with the individual channels, causing further dilution. This is a structural property of the closed hypothesis space, not an implementation defect that prior tuning can fix. We cannot directly test the hierarchical restructuring (option a) within the scope of this revision, as it would require developing a substantially new model architecture. However, we will take option (b): we will revise the manuscript to explicitly acknowledge that the dilution effect is a structural limitation of the flat hypothesis space, that prior tuning alone cannot resolve it, and that hierarchical priors over model families are a necessary direction for future work. This is an important clarification and we thank the referee for pushing us to make it. revision: yes
Referee: The Enhanced Model Explorations section describes two additional Bayesian implementations that both failed, but provides no quantitative results, figures, or diagnostic metrics. The reader is told that literature-informed Gaussian temporal priors produced 'erratic expression patterns' and 'probability collapse,' and that marginalized likelihoods caused posteriors to 'collapse into extreme values (0 or 1),' but no expression plots, posterior traces, or sensitivity analyses are shown. These are the most theoretically principled approaches discussed, and their failure modes are the most informative for future work. Without any quantitative characterization, it is impossible for the reader to assess whether these failures are fundamental or merely engineering problems.

Authors: This is a fair criticism. We will add quantitative diagnostic information for both failed implementations. Specifically, we will include: (1) For the literature-informed temporal priors, an expression plot showing the erratic patterns alongside a brief quantitative description of the instability (e.g., number of spurious peaks, deviation from expected latencies). (2) For the marginalized likelihood approach, a histogram or summary statistics showing the posterior collapse (e.g., fraction of latencies/channels with posterior > 0.99 or < 0.01). We agree that these failure modes are the most informative part of the paper for future work, and providing quantitative characterization will allow readers to assess whether the failures are fundamental or engineering problems. We acknowledge that without this information, the reader cannot evaluate our claims about the failure modes, and we will rectify this in the revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the paper's central claim is a methodological proposal, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper proposes casting IPPM construction as Bayesian model comparison and evaluates it against a frequentist baseline on a known loudness pathway. The authors explicitly acknowledge that their ground-truth pathway (Thwaites et al., 2017) was established using frequentist methods, stating: 'This introduces a risk of circularity in our model adjudication.' However, this is a methodological limitation they flag honestly, not a structural circularity in their derivation. The Bayesian framework's equations (posterior proportional to likelihood times prior) are standard and not defined in terms of their own outputs. The paper does not claim to derive a novel result from a self-citation chain; it presents a comparison where the Bayesian implementation underperforms, and attributes this to implementation choices rather than framework failure. The self-citations (Thwaites et al., 2015, 2017, 2025; Lakra et al., 2025) are used to establish the ground-truth pathway and the IPPM inference procedure, which are inputs to the comparison rather than claims being derived. The paper's actual finding—that the baseline Bayesian implementation produces artifacts—is an empirical observation, not a quantity forced by construction. The authors' attribution of failures to 'implementation' rather than 'framework' is a framing choice that could be debated on correctness grounds, but it is not circular: no equation or definition makes the conclusion equivalent to the input. The score of 2 reflects the minor self-citation pattern (authors appear on both the ground-truth-establishing papers and the current paper) combined with the authors' own acknowledgment of circularity risk, neither of which rises to a structural reduction of outputs to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard statistical assumptions (Gaussian noise, uniform priors) and uses an established computational model (Glasberg-Moore) as its basis. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (1)

Uniform prior P(H) = uniform
Used as a baseline to isolate the likelihood function, though the authors note this is a key limitation.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Gaussian noise distribution over residuals
The likelihood is computed assuming Gaussian noise, a standard but potentially limiting assumption for M/EEG data.
domain assumption Known loudness pathway as ground truth
The validation relies on the Glasberg-Moore model and its established cortical expression as a benchmark.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 12756 in / 1592 out tokens · 274423 ms · 2026-07-08T10:50:48.469348+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Efron, B. (2013). A 250-year argument: Belief, behavior, and the bootstrap.Bulletin of the American Mathematical Soci- ety,50(1), 129–146

work page 2013
[2]

B., Stern, H

Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC

work page 1995
[3]

R., & Moore, B

Glasberg, B. R., & Moore, B. C. J. (2002). A model of loudness applicable to time-varying sounds.Journal of the Audio En- gineering Society,50(5), 331–342

work page 2002
[4]

Jaynes, E. T. (2003).Probability theory: The logic of science. Cambridge University Press

work page 2003
[5]

E., & Raftery, A

Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors.Journal of the American Statistical Association,90(430), 773–795

work page 1995
[6]

C., & Pouget, A

Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004). The bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation.TRENDS in Neurosciences,27(12), 712–719

work page 2004
[7]

Lakra, A., Wingfield, C., Zhang, C., & Thwaites, A. (2025). Strategies for automatic generation of information process- ing pathway maps.Frontiers in Neuroimaging,4(1608390). doi: 10.3389/fnimg.2025.1608390

work page doi:10.3389/fnimg.2025.1608390 2025
[8]

Moroney, N., Fairchild, M., Hunt, R., & Li, C. (2002). The CIECAM02 color appearance model. In10th Color and Imaging Conference Final Program and Proceedings.Soci- ety for Imaging Science and Technology

work page 2002
[9]

D., Stephan, K

Penny, W. D., Stephan, K. E., Mechelli, A., & Friston, K. J. (2004). Comparing dynamic causal models.Neuroimage, 22(3), 1157–1172

work page 2004
[10]

Rosa, M., Bestmann, S., Harrison, L., & Penny, W. (2010). Bayesian model selection maps for group studies.Neuroim- age,49(1), 217–224

work page 2010
[11]

Friston, K. J. (2009). Bayesian model selection for group studies.Neuroimage,46(4), 1004–1017

work page 2009
[12]

D., Buttery, P ., & Marslen-Wilson, W

Thwaites, A., Nimmo-Smith, I., Fonteneau, E., Patterson, R. D., Buttery, P ., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2015). Tracking cortical entrainment in neural activity: auditory processes in human temporal cortex.Frontiers in Computational Neuro- science,9(5). doi: 10.3389/fncom.2015.00005

work page doi:10.3389/fncom.2015.00005 2015
[13]

D., & Moore, B

Wilson, W. D., & Moore, B. C. (2017). Tonotopic represen- tation of loudness in the human cortex.Hearing Research, 344, 244-254. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.11.015

work page doi:10.1016/j.heares.2016.11.015 2017
[14]

D., & Nimmo-Smith, I

Wilson, W. D., & Nimmo-Smith, I. (2018). Entrainment to the CIECAM02 and CIELAB colour appearance models in the human cortex.Vision Research,145, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2018.01.011

work page doi:10.1016/j.visres.2018.01.011 2018
[15]

Thwaites, A., Zhang, C., & Woolgar, A. (2025). Informa- tion processing pathway maps — a scalable framework for mapping cortical processing.NeuroImage,317(15). doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121345

work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121345 2025
[16]

D., & Thwaites, A

Wingfield, C., Soltan, A., Nimmo-Smith, I., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Thwaites, A. (2025). Tracking cortical entrainment7 to stages of optic-flow processing.Vision Research,226, 108523. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2024.108523 Y ang, C., Parish, O., Klimovich-Gray, A., Wingfield, C.,

work page doi:10.1016/j.visres.2024.108523 2025
[17]

D., Zhang, C.,

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Zhang, C., . . . Thwaites, A. (2026). Kymata soto language dataset: an electro- magnetoencephalographic dataset for natural speech pro- cessing.Scientific Data. doi: 10.1038/s41597-026-06579- 8 Y ang, C., Wingfield, C., Dong, J., Ho, S. Y. S., Lakra, A., Alexandra Woolgar, C. Z., & Thwaites, A. (2026). Replica- bility of auditory in...

work page doi:10.1038/s41597-026-06579- 2026

[1] [1]

Efron, B. (2013). A 250-year argument: Belief, behavior, and the bootstrap.Bulletin of the American Mathematical Soci- ety,50(1), 129–146

work page 2013

[2] [2]

B., Stern, H

Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC

work page 1995

[3] [3]

R., & Moore, B

Glasberg, B. R., & Moore, B. C. J. (2002). A model of loudness applicable to time-varying sounds.Journal of the Audio En- gineering Society,50(5), 331–342

work page 2002

[4] [4]

Jaynes, E. T. (2003).Probability theory: The logic of science. Cambridge University Press

work page 2003

[5] [5]

E., & Raftery, A

Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors.Journal of the American Statistical Association,90(430), 773–795

work page 1995

[6] [6]

C., & Pouget, A

Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004). The bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation.TRENDS in Neurosciences,27(12), 712–719

work page 2004

[7] [7]

Lakra, A., Wingfield, C., Zhang, C., & Thwaites, A. (2025). Strategies for automatic generation of information process- ing pathway maps.Frontiers in Neuroimaging,4(1608390). doi: 10.3389/fnimg.2025.1608390

work page doi:10.3389/fnimg.2025.1608390 2025

[8] [8]

Moroney, N., Fairchild, M., Hunt, R., & Li, C. (2002). The CIECAM02 color appearance model. In10th Color and Imaging Conference Final Program and Proceedings.Soci- ety for Imaging Science and Technology

work page 2002

[9] [9]

D., Stephan, K

Penny, W. D., Stephan, K. E., Mechelli, A., & Friston, K. J. (2004). Comparing dynamic causal models.Neuroimage, 22(3), 1157–1172

work page 2004

[10] [10]

Rosa, M., Bestmann, S., Harrison, L., & Penny, W. (2010). Bayesian model selection maps for group studies.Neuroim- age,49(1), 217–224

work page 2010

[11] [11]

Friston, K. J. (2009). Bayesian model selection for group studies.Neuroimage,46(4), 1004–1017

work page 2009

[12] [12]

D., Buttery, P ., & Marslen-Wilson, W

Thwaites, A., Nimmo-Smith, I., Fonteneau, E., Patterson, R. D., Buttery, P ., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2015). Tracking cortical entrainment in neural activity: auditory processes in human temporal cortex.Frontiers in Computational Neuro- science,9(5). doi: 10.3389/fncom.2015.00005

work page doi:10.3389/fncom.2015.00005 2015

[13] [13]

D., & Moore, B

Wilson, W. D., & Moore, B. C. (2017). Tonotopic represen- tation of loudness in the human cortex.Hearing Research, 344, 244-254. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.11.015

work page doi:10.1016/j.heares.2016.11.015 2017

[14] [14]

D., & Nimmo-Smith, I

Wilson, W. D., & Nimmo-Smith, I. (2018). Entrainment to the CIECAM02 and CIELAB colour appearance models in the human cortex.Vision Research,145, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2018.01.011

work page doi:10.1016/j.visres.2018.01.011 2018

[15] [15]

Thwaites, A., Zhang, C., & Woolgar, A. (2025). Informa- tion processing pathway maps — a scalable framework for mapping cortical processing.NeuroImage,317(15). doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121345

work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121345 2025

[16] [16]

D., & Thwaites, A

Wingfield, C., Soltan, A., Nimmo-Smith, I., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Thwaites, A. (2025). Tracking cortical entrainment7 to stages of optic-flow processing.Vision Research,226, 108523. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2024.108523 Y ang, C., Parish, O., Klimovich-Gray, A., Wingfield, C.,

work page doi:10.1016/j.visres.2024.108523 2025

[17] [17]

D., Zhang, C.,

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Zhang, C., . . . Thwaites, A. (2026). Kymata soto language dataset: an electro- magnetoencephalographic dataset for natural speech pro- cessing.Scientific Data. doi: 10.1038/s41597-026-06579- 8 Y ang, C., Wingfield, C., Dong, J., Ho, S. Y. S., Lakra, A., Alexandra Woolgar, C. Z., & Thwaites, A. (2026). Replica- bility of auditory in...

work page doi:10.1038/s41597-026-06579- 2026