Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 23 references

Trial-Level Time-frequency EEG Desynchronization as a Neural Marker of Pain

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Per-trial beta-band EEG desynchronization distinguishes pain from no-pain and predicts intensity ratings.

desk verdict Per-trial beta ERD distinguishes pain from no-pain with a strong effect, but the paper's predictive claim rests on in-sample fits and data-dependent ROI selection, so it is not yet evidence of a predictive marker. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10552 v1 pith:AUWMR6QO submitted 2025-09-09 q-bio.NC cs.LG

D.A. Blanco-Mora , A. Dierolf , J. Gonçalves , M. van Der Meulen This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCcs.LG
keywords event-relateddesynchronizationpainmarkerEEGbetabandtrial-levelanalysisgeneralizedlinearmixedmodelvisualanaloguescaletime-frequency
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 seeks to establish that a single-trial EEG feature—$\beta$-band event-related desynchronization (ERD) over frontal-central electrodes—can act as a nonverbal, intensity-sensitive marker of pain. In 59 healthy adults receiving calibrated electrical stimulation, a data-driven $\beta$ ROI [220–760 ms; 15.21–30 Hz] separated Pain from No-Pain trials in a generalized linear mixed model (main effect $p = 7.02\times 10^{-16}$). ERD also scaled with subjective VAS ratings (Condition × VAS interaction $p = 0.002$), and reverse models showed ERD predicting VAS across participants ($p = 3.42\times 10^{-7}$), with age and gender moderating the coupling. This matters because it points toward EEG-based pain monitoring for patients who cannot report pain, and toward quantitative endpoints for analgesic testing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Beta ROI, a rectangular time–frequency patch defined by a data-driven masking procedure: pointwise t-tests of post-stimulus power against a pre-stimulus baseline distribution, family-wise error corrected across the grand-average time–frequency matrix, yielding the window [220–760 ms; 15.21–30 Hz] averaged over F1, F2, Fz, and FCz. ERD is expressed as percentage change relative to baseline power, and single-trial values are extracted by averaging within the ROI. Statistical inference is carried by Gamma generalized linear mixed models with log link and participant-level random intercepts, which model condition, VAS, age, gender, and interactions, plus reverse models that predict VAS from ERD. This design turns trial-level variability into the unit of analysis, which is the paper's main methodological departure from trial-averaged pain EEG studies.

What would settle it

Re-run the same GLMMs on a pre-specified beta ROI and a held-out participant split: if the Pain–No-Pain effect and the ERD–VAS slope shrink toward zero out-of-sample, the marker claim is not generalizable; if they persist, the circularity concern is weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that per-trial beta-band ERD, measured as baseline-relative power decrease in electrodes F1, F2, Fz, and FCz, carries both categorical and intensity information about pain perception. Pain trials produced stronger desynchronization than No-Pain trials, and the effect was robust across model specifications. The relationship with subjective intensity was significant but directionally surprising: within the Pain condition, higher VAS ratings were associated with less negative ERD, i.e., beta power stayed closer to baseline when participants reported higher pain. The same feature predicted VAS ratings in reverse models, and demographic variables—age and gender—moderated the ERD–VAS coupling. The paper frames this as preliminary evidence that trial-level EEG oscillations can serve as reliable indicators of pain and support individualized, report-free pain monitoring.

Load-bearing premise

The strongest numbers rest on defining the beta region of interest from a significance mask on the same 59-participant dataset that is then used to test the condition and intensity effects, so the analysis assumes this does not inflate significance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the finding is correct, frontal-central beta ERD becomes a continuous, nonverbal readout of pain intensity rather than only a Pain/No-Pain classifier.
  • The marker could support pain monitoring in non-communicative patients and provide an objective endpoint for analgesic or neuromodulatory trials.
  • Because age and gender change the ERD–VAS coupling, pain-decoding models will need demographic covariates rather than a single population-level slope.
  • The inverse ERD–VAS direction suggests that beta activity near baseline at high pain may reflect compensatory or top-down processes, a hypothesis that follow-up attention-manipulation studies can test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ROI-selection step is circular in effect, the headline p-values are optimistic; a pre-registered split-sample reanalysis with a fixed ROI is the direct way to estimate the true generalization error.
  • A specificity test comparing painful with non-painful but equally salient somatosensory stimulation would show whether the beta ERD signature encodes pain perception or general stimulus salience.
  • The positive ERD–VAS slope in Pain trials could be exploited therapeutically: if frontal beta maintenance reduces pain, beta-enhancing or alpha-entraining visual stimulation might modulate the same circuit, an extension the paper's discussion only gestures at.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes high-density EEG from 59 healthy participants receiving electrical stimulation under Pain and No-Pain conditions. Per-trial time-frequency decomposition is used to define regions of interest for event-related desynchronization (ERD), and generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) relate beta-band ERD in frontal-central electrodes to experimental condition, subjective VAS intensity ratings, age, and gender. The authors report a strong Condition effect on beta ERD (p=7.02e-16), a Condition-by-VAS interaction (p=0.002), demographic interactions, and a 'reverse' model in which ERD predicts VAS across participants. They conclude that trial-level beta ERD supports utility as a nonverbal marker of pain.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the paper would make a useful contribution by moving from trial-averaged analyses to trial-level mixed models and by quantifying demographic modulation of pain-related oscillatory responses. The study is a secondary analysis of an existing dataset, and the manuscript explicitly frames the results as preliminary. The main strengths are the use of per-trial data, a data-driven time-frequency masking procedure, and a mixed-model framework that accounts for participant-level variability. However, the evidence for the 'marker' claim is currently limited by in-sample analyses: the ROI is selected from the same data used for inference, the reduced model is obtained by unadjusted stepwise selection, and the reverse 'prediction' is a regression fit to the same data with no out-of-sample validation. The paper also does not provide code or data, which limits reproducibility and independent assessment. The significance of the reported effects is therefore uncertain until these validity threats are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [II-E, III-A] The Beta ROI [220-760 ms; 15.21-30 Hz] is defined from a grand-average time-frequency significance mask computed on the same 59 participants used for all subsequent GLMMs, and four ROIs were identified while only the Beta ROI is reported. This creates a selection effect: p-values for the VAS interaction (p=0.002), the gender interaction (p=0.02), and demographic terms are not protected against the ROI-selection process. The very large Condition main effect (p=7.02e-16) may plausibly survive selection, but the weaker, load-bearing effects cannot be interpreted at face value. The authors should either report all ROIs (with appropriate correction), use a split-sample or cross-validated selection procedure, or explicitly state that the reported p-values are conditional on a data-derived ROI and therefore exploratory.
  2. [III-B, Fig. 3] The 'reverse models' purportedly predicting VAS from ERD are in-sample fits to the same data used to fit the model; the equations in Figure 3 (VAS = 62.15 + 0.044*ERD) are ordinary regression lines, not predictive validation. No cross-validation, held-out participant, or out-of-sample evaluation is reported. The statement that ERD 'predicted VAS ratings across participants' and 'supports its utility as a nonverbal marker of pain' is therefore not supported by the presented analysis. At minimum, the manuscript should reframe these results as descriptive associations and add a genuine out-of-sample or cross-validated prediction analysis before making the marker claim.
  3. [II-F, Eq. (1)] The statistical model is reduced by backward stepwise elimination, and only the final retained model is presented. Stepwise selection without adjustment (e.g., bootstrap, model-averaging, or selection-aware inference) means that the p-values for retained terms, including Condition-by-VAS and demographic interactions, are not valid as reported. The manuscript should either justify the selection procedure statistically, provide selection-adjusted estimates, or present the full factorial model and its fit statistics in addition to the reduced model.
  4. [II-F] A Gamma GLMM with a log link requires a strictly positive outcome, but ERD/ERS values are percentage changes that are negative during desynchronization. The manuscript states that 'transformed ERD values' were modeled but never specifies the transformation. Without this detail, the reported effect directions, the regression equations in Figure 3, and the model interpretation cannot be evaluated. The authors must state the exact transformation and how it relates to the ERD values displayed in the figures.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II-E] The sentence 'see it in 1' appears to be an incomplete reference; it should read 'see Fig. 1' or similar.
  2. [II-E] The labels 'Alpha1', 'Alpha2', 'Alpha-Beta', and 'Beta' are introduced in the masking procedure, but only the Beta ROI is analyzed or discussed. The authors should state whether analyses for the other ROIs were performed and, if so, where the results are reported, or clarify the preregistered/planned focus.
  3. [Throughout] The manuscript inconsistently uses 'V AS' with spaces; this should be changed to 'VAS' throughout for readability.
  4. [II-D] The ICA artifact rejection thresholds (ICLabel 'Brain' probability < 0.5, and correlation > 0.4 with auxiliary channels) are reported, but the number of rejected components per participant is not summarized; reporting this would help assess data-quality variability.
  5. [III-B] The reported p-values in Section III-B (e.g., Condition p<2e-16, three-way interaction p=2e-6) are presented without effect sizes or confidence intervals; adding these would improve interpretability, especially given the in-sample concerns raised above.
  6. [II-F] The model comparison criteria (AIC, BIC, likelihood ratio tests) are mentioned but no table or numerical values are provided; a supplementary table with fit statistics for candidate models would help readers assess the stepwise reduction.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central 'marker' claim rests on in-sample fits: the reverse VAS model is a regression line fit to the same data, and the Beta ROI is selected from the same dataset without adjustment.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-B, 'Prediction of Pain Intensity from ERD (VAS Model)', and Figure 3]
    "Reverse models were tested to evaluate the predictive capacity of ERD on subjective VAS ratings. ERD alone significantly predicted VAS across individuals (p=3.42×10−7)... Figure 3: VAS = 11.77 + −0.023·ERD ... VAS = 62.15 + 0.044·ERD ... Predicted VAS vs ERS/ERD"

    The 'prediction' is an in-sample GLMM fit on the same 59 participants' trial-level data; Figure 3 plots the fitted regression lines. No held-out trials, cross-validation, or temporal forward prediction is reported. A nonzero fitted slope and its p-value are guaranteed estimable from the data, so the claim that 'ERD predicted VAS ratings across participants' reduces to 'the ERD coefficient in the reverse GLMM is nonzero.' This is a goodness-of-fit statement renamed as predictive utility, not out-of-sample prediction.

  2. other [Section II-E, 'Data-driven TF masking', and Section III-A]
    "For each TF bin within 0–1000 ms, we compared post-stimulus power against the baseline distribution (−500 to −200 ms) via pointwise t-tests and controlled family-wise error across all TF comparisons. The corrected significance threshold was α∼10−6. Contiguous significant clusters were identified and labeled as Alpha1, Alpha2, Alpha-Beta and Beta regions of interest (ROIs)... For every trial, ERD/ERS values were then averaged across these electrodes, then, ERD/ERS values were then extracted by averaging within each ROI (frequency × time) and carried forward to the statistical models."

    The Beta ROI is defined from a significance mask computed on the grand average of the same participants and trials whose per-trial ERD values later serve as the dependent variable in the condition and VAS GLMMs. The feature being validated is therefore constructed from the very data used for validation. Because no split-sample or selection-adjusted inference is provided, the reported effects are conditional on a data-driven ROI selection that is not independent evidence. This is not a full self-definitional equivalence because the mask compares post-stimulus power to baseline rather than directly contrasting Pain vs. No-Pain, but it still burdens the derivation chain with circularity.

full rationale

The paper's main condition contrast (p=7.02e-16) is likely robust enough to survive some selection bias because the Beta ROI mask was derived from a stimulus-versus-baseline contrast on the grand average, not directly from the Pain versus No-Pain contrast. However, the paper's central translational claim is that ERD 'can serve as a nonverbal marker of pain' and that 'ERD predicted VAS ratings across participants.' That predictive claim is supported only by an in-sample reverse GLMM whose fitted regression lines are shown in Figure 3; no out-of-sample validation, cross-validation, or code/data release is provided. Additionally, the Beta ROI is selected from the same dataset used for all statistical tests, and the stepwise backward elimination is unadjusted, so the reported p-values for the VAS slope, Condition x VAS interaction, and demographic interactions are not protected against selection effects. These are in-sample fit results presented as prediction. The self-citations to the authors' prior methodology papers are not load-bearing here: the TF masking procedure is described in the Methods rather than imported wholesale, and the cited parent study only supplies the dataset. The central deficiency is not a hidden equivalence between equations but the presentation of fitted quantities as predictions, which is the core circularity-burden in this manuscript.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a small set of data-fitted parameters: the time-frequency ROI boundaries, per-participant stimulus intensities, and the stepwise-selected GLMM terms. It also relies on domain assumptions about stimulus calibration, same-data ROI selection, the use of a grand-average baseline for single-trial ERD, and the electrode selection. No invented theoretical entities are introduced; the analysis uses established EEG measures.

free parameters (3)
  • Beta ROI time-frequency window = 220 to 760 ms; 15.21 to 30 Hz
    Selected from a data-driven TF significance mask computed on the grand average of the same dataset; all outcome measures are averaged inside this window, so the window is fitted to the data rather than specified a priori.
  • Per-participant electrical stimulus intensity = Individualized; VAS targets ~62.5 (Pain), <25 (No-Pain)
    Stimulation levels were calibrated per participant during a preliminary phase (Section II-B), meaning the experimental contrast includes differences in physical intensity, not only in perceived pain.
  • GLMM fixed-effect terms retained by stepwise elimination = Eq. 1 terms: Age + Condition + Gender + Age:Condition + VAS + Condition:VAS + Condition:Gender
    The model structure was chosen by backward stepwise elimination on the same data used for significance testing; p-values are reported from the selected model without correction for the model search.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The individually calibrated stimulation makes Pain and No-Pain trials differ mainly in pain perception, not in stimulus strength or attentional confounds.
    Section II-B describes Pain at VAS ~62.5 and No-Pain below VAS 25, so the conditions differ in intensity; the study attributes the EEG contrast to pain processing.
  • ad hoc to paper A time-frequency ROI derived from the same data can be used for subsequent inferential tests without biasing results.
    Section II-E derives the Beta ROI from the grand-average significance mask across all participants and conditions, then Section III tests condition and VAS effects within that ROI on the same data.
  • ad hoc to paper Using the grand trial-averaged baseline as the denominator for single-trial ERD is statistically valid and does not create trial dependence.
    Section II-E states that the baseline term used for single-trial ERD/ERS was the grand trial-averaged baseline power at each frequency; this shared denominator is a modeling choice not justified or sensitivity-tested.
  • domain assumption Frontal-central electrodes F1, F2, Fz, FCz are the correct scalp locations for pain-related beta ERD.
    Section II-E restricts analysis to these four electrodes; no whole-scalp search or control for other electrode sites is reported.
  • standard math A Gamma GLMM with log link is appropriate for the transformed ERD values.
    Section II-F states the Gamma/log-link choice but does not specify the transform that makes ERD strictly positive, so the distributional assumption cannot be checked from the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trial-Level Time-frequency EEG Desynchronization as a Neural Marker of Pain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUWMR6QO

@misc{pith2026250910552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trial-Level Time-frequency EEG Desynchronization as a Neural Marker of Pain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUWMR6QO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10552}
}
read the original abstract

Pain remains one of the most pressing health challenges, yet its measurement still relies heavily on self-report, limiting monitoring in non-communicative patients and hindering translational research. Neural oscillations recorded with electroencephalography (EEG) provide a promising avenue for identifying reproducible markers of nociceptive processing. Prior studies have reported pain-related event-related desynchronization (ERD) in the alpha and beta bands, but most rely on trial-averaging, obscuring variability that may be critical for perception. We analyzed high-density EEG from 59 healthy participants who underwent electrical stimulation under Pain and No-Pain conditions. Per-trial time-frequency decomposition revealed robust beta-band ERD in frontal-central electrodes that differentiated Pain from No-Pain trials. Generalized linear mixed models demonstrated that ERD scaled with subjective intensity ratings (VAS), and that age and gender moderated this relationship. Reverse models further showed that ERD predicted VAS ratings across participants, underscoring its potential as a nonverbal marker of pain. These findings provide preliminary evidence that trial-level EEG oscillations can serve as reliable indicators of pain and open avenues for individualized, report-free pain monitoring. Future work should validate these results in patient populations and extend analyses to multimodal approaches combining EEG, MRI, and attention-based modulation strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10552 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time-Frequency feature extraction. Top: Grand Time-frequency Average across participants and conditions; Bottom: Significance mask for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top-Left: Predicted ERD values by Condition (Pain vs. No-Pain), showing reduced ERD in Pain trials. Top-Right: Grand-average time–frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Distribution of VAS intensity ratings across Pain (Red) and No-Pain (Blue) conditions, showing distinct distributional profiles. Right: Predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brain rhythms of pain,

    M. Ploner, C. Sorg, and J. Gross, “Brain rhythms of pain,”Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 100–110, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Changes of spontaneous oscillatory activity to tonic heat pain,

    W. Peng, L. Hu, Z. Zhang, and Y . Hu, “Changes of spontaneous oscillatory activity to tonic heat pain,”PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 3, p. e91052, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Brain oscillations differentially encode noxious stimulus intensity and pain intensity,

    M. M. Nickel, E. S. May, L. Tiemann, P. Schmidt, M. Postorino, S. Ta Dinh, F. Nees, H. Flor, and M. Ploner, “Brain oscillations differentially encode noxious stimulus intensity and pain intensity,” NeuroImage, vol. 148, pp. 141–147, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Neural indicators of perceptual variability of pain across species,

    L. Hu and G. D. Iannetti, “Neural indicators of perceptual variability of pain across species,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 5, pp. 1782–1791, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    EEG indices of tonic pain-related activity in the somatosensory cortices,

    R. Dowman, D. Rissacher, and S. Schuckers, “EEG indices of tonic pain-related activity in the somatosensory cortices,”Clinical Neuro- physiology, vol. 119, no. 5, pp. 1201–1212, 2008

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Induced oscillatory signaling in the beta frequency of top-down pain modulation,

    M. Diers, J. Koeppe, N. Diesch,et al., “Induced oscillatory signaling in the beta frequency of top-down pain modulation,”Pain Reports, vol. 5, no. 1, p. e806, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Cortical nociceptive processes are reduced by visual alpha-band entrainment in the human brain,

    K. Ecsy, C. A. Brown, and A. K. P. Jones, “Cortical nociceptive processes are reduced by visual alpha-band entrainment in the human brain,”European Journal of Pain, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 538–550, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Age-related differences in func- tional connectivity associated with pain modulation,

    M. van der Meulen, K. M. Rischer, A. M. Gonz ´alez-Rold´an, J. L. Terrasa, P. Montoya, and F. Anton, “Age-related differences in func- tional connectivity associated with pain modulation,”Neurobiology of Aging, vol. 140, pp. 1–11, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Top-down control of visual cortex by the frontal eye fields through oscillatory realignment,

    D. Veniero, J. Gross, S. Morand, F. Duecker, A. T. Sack, and G. Thut, “Top-down control of visual cortex by the frontal eye fields through oscillatory realignment,”Nature Communications, vol. 12, p. 1691, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Visual contrast sensitivity improvement by right frontal high-beta activity is mediated by con- trast gain mechanisms and influenced by fronto-parietal white matter microstructure,

    R. Quentin, F. Chanes, J. Vernet,et al., “Visual contrast sensitivity improvement by right frontal high-beta activity is mediated by con- trast gain mechanisms and influenced by fronto-parietal white matter microstructure,”Cerebral Cortex, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 2381–2390, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Alpha entrainment drives pain relief using visual stimulation in a sample of chronic pain patients: A proof-of-concept controlled study,

    K. L ´opez-D´ıaz, J. Henshaw, A. J. Casson, C. A. Brown, J. R. Taylor, N. J. Trujillo-Barreto, L. J. Arendsen, and A. K. P. Jones, “Alpha entrainment drives pain relief using visual stimulation in a sample of chronic pain patients: A proof-of-concept controlled study,” NeuroRe...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Aging and complexity ef- fects on hemisphere-dependent movement-related beta desynchroniza- tion during bimanual motor planning and execution,

    S. van Hoornweder, D. A. Blanco-Mora, S. Depestele, K. van Dun, K. Cuypers, S. Verstraelen, and R. Meesen, “Aging and complexity ef- fects on hemisphere-dependent movement-related beta desynchroniza- tion during bimanual motor planning and execution,”Brain Sciences, vol. 12, n...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Age and interlimb coordination complexity modulate oscillatory spectral dynamics and large-scale functional connectivity,

    S. van Hoornweder, D. A. B. Blanco-Mora, S. Depestele, J. Frieske, K. van Dun, K. Cuypers, S. Verstraelen, and R. Meesen, “Age and interlimb coordination complexity modulate oscillatory spectral dynamics and large-scale functional connectivity,”Neuroscience, vol. 496, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Toward method- ologies for motor imagery enhancement: a tDCS-BCI study,

    D. A. Blanco-Mora, S. van Hoornweder, K. van Dun, S. Verstraelen, K. Cuypers, S. Berm ´udez i Badia, and R. Meesen, “Toward method- ologies for motor imagery enhancement: a tDCS-BCI study,”Brain- Computer Interfaces, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 110–124, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    The causal role of beta band desyn- chronization: Individualized high-definition transcranial alternating current stimulation improves bimanual motor control,

    S. van Hoornweder, D. A. Blanco-Mora, M. Nuyts, K. Cuypers, S. Verstraelen, and R. Meesen, “The causal role of beta band desyn- chronization: Individualized high-definition transcranial alternating current stimulation improves bimanual motor control,”NeuroImage, vol. 312, p. 1...

    2025

  8. [16]

    The placebo hypoalgesic response is reduced in healthy older adults showing a decline in executive functioning,

    K. M. Rischer, A. M. Dierolf, F. Anton, P. Montoya, A. M. Gonz ´alez- Rold´an, and M. van der Meulen, “The placebo hypoalgesic response is reduced in healthy older adults showing a decline in executive functioning,”Journal of Pain Research, vol. 18, pp. 1747–1763, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent compo- nent analysis,

    A. Delorme and S. Makeig, “EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent compo- nent analysis,”Journal of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 9–21, 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    Determining the initial states in forward-backward filtering,

    F. Gustafsson, “Determining the initial states in forward-backward filtering,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 988–992, 1996

    1996

  11. [19]

    ICLabel: an automated electroencephalographic independent component classifier, dataset, and website,

    L. Pion-Tonachini, K. Kreutz-Delgado, and S. Makeig, “ICLabel: an automated electroencephalographic independent component classifier, dataset, and website,”NeuroImage, vol. 198, pp. 181–197, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    M. X. Cohen,Analyzing Neural Time Series Data: Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Fitting linear mixed- effects models using lme4,

    D. Bates, M. M ¨achler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker, “Fitting linear mixed- effects models using lme4,”Journal of Statistical Software, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 1–48, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    RStudio: Integrated development for R,

    RStudio Team, “RStudio: Integrated development for R,”http:// www.rstudio.com/, 2020, rStudio, PBC, Boston, MA

    2020

  15. [23]

    G3d-vit, a small step towards 3d interpretability of vision transformers,

    T. Gillet, M. Oliveira, B. Bausch, D. A. Blanco-Mora, J. Gonc ¸alves, E. Blaney Davidson, and M. van der Meulen, “G3d-vit, a small step towards 3d interpretability of vision transformers,” inProceedings of the 11th World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems ...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.