Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Learning the Brain's Dynamics as a Port-Hamiltonian System: A GNN-Surrogate Metriplectic Twin for Non-Equilibrium Cortical Dynamics and Closed-Loop Neuromodulation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A port-Hamiltonian GNN surrogate of cortex, fitted to scalp EEG phasors, reproduces near-critical avalanche branching (σ=1.00 against observed 0.94) but fails the 1/f and DFA rungs; the paper presents the gap as a concrete upgrade path.

desk verdict Interesting framework with honest failure reporting, but the implemented model doesn't match the advertised theory and the one success may be a tuning artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10439 v2 pith:T4KIMJ2A submitted 2026-07-11 q-bio.NC cs.AI

Dibakar Sigdel This is my paper
classification q-bio.NCcs.AI
keywords port-HamiltoniansystemsmetriplecticdynamicsgraphneuralnetworkscorticalcriticalityavalanchebranchingEEGphasorsnon-equilibriumsteadystatesneuromodulation
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

This paper tries to establish that a physics-constrained model of cortical dynamics—phases and frequencies of EEG oscillations coupled through a port-Hamiltonian structure with a learned dissipation graph network—can be fitted to human recordings and then judged by invariants it was never trained to match. The free-running model reproduces the cortex's near-critical avalanche branching (σ=1.00 against a measured 0.94), and the paper takes this as evidence that the dissipation–fluctuation structure is doing real physical work. The same free-run fails two other model-independent tests: the aperiodic 1/f spectral slope (β=1.96 vs 1.18) and long-range temporal correlations (DFA α=1.68 vs 0.68), a gap the paper states plainly and attributes to specific, named upgrades: excitatory–inhibitory criticality control and volume-conduction-robust connectivity. A sympathetic reader would care because a model that clears one nontrivial invariant while being explicit about the rungs it misses offers a testable route from black-box EEG classification toward mechanism, energy accounting, and stimulation with stability guarantees.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the metriplectic/port-Hamiltonian cortical twin: canonical phasor coordinates x=[φ,ω], a Hamiltonian decomposed into five band sub-energies, a skew-symmetric connectome J(x) gated by a phase-locking prior, state-dependent dissipation R(x), and a single 'arousal temperature' T that scales the fluctuation-dissipation noise. Its role is to guarantee structure: conservative routing in one bracket, entropy production in the other, a steady-state power balance instead of decay to silence, and stability guarantees under stimulation. The GNN surrogate makes the state-dependent operators learnable at 64 channels while preserving the physical shape constraints by constructio

What would settle it

Re-run the stochastic free-run with T swept from, say, 0 to 1 (or learned from data) and check whether σ stays near 1 across a broad range; also replace the learned R(x) with scalar dissipation and re-score. If branching collapses or moves with T, the invariant is an artifact of tuning rather than an emergent property.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the author's own terms, is that a 'Cortical GNN-pHNN'—a graph-neural-network surrogate embedded in a port-Hamiltonian/metriplectic structure over band-limited neural phasors—can be fitted to large-scale scalp EEG from multiple subjects and then evaluated as a physical model rather than a classifier. The Hamiltonian is stratified into five interpretable sub-energies (delta through gamma); the coupling matrix J(x) is kept skew-symmetric by construction and gated by measured phase-locking; dissipation R(x) is state-dependent and positive-semidefinite; and a fluctuation-dissipation noise channel with a single arousal temperature T turns the system into a non-equilibrium ste

Load-bearing premise

The avalanche-branching match rests on the unexamined choice of arousal temperature T=0.2 and the learned dissipation matrix; if that choice is doing the work, the port-Hamiltonian structure adds little beyond a stochastic oscillator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the branching match is not a temperature artifact, a physics-constrained EEG model can reproduce a model-independent invariant it never trained on, lending support to cortical criticality as a genuine dynamical signature.
  • The two reported failures set quantitative targets: an excitatory–inhibitory criticality control and a volume-conduction-robust connectome should shallow the 1/f slope and pull the DFA exponent below 1.
  • The metriplectic reformulation replaces relaxation-to-silence with a non-equilibrium steady state, so resting cortex can sustain oscillation indefinitely—matching the waking brain.
  • Fluctuation-dissipation noise gives trial-to-trial variability and a single arousal axis, linking discrete EEG conditions to locations on a continuous temperature scale.
  • The neuroanatomical stimulation ports plus energy-shaping control provide a stability-guaranteed route to closed-loop neuromodulation, contingent on TMS-EEG perturbational validation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the branching result is currently overdetermined by the unexamined choice T=0.2 and the learned dissipation R(x); until a temperature sweep is reported, the port-Hamiltonian structure cannot be separated from fitted noise.
  • Editorial inference: because the metabolic port is absent from the implemented free-run, the validated model is closer to a stochastic dissipative oscillator than to the advertised metriplectic non-equilibrium steady state; the non-equilibrium claim is prospective.
  • Editorial inference: a cheap control experiment—train a black-box recurrent surrogate on the same phasor objective and score the same invariants—would show whether the branching pass comes from structure preservation or merely from stochastic dissipation.
  • Editorial inference: if the proposed criticality-control upgrade closes the spectral and DFA gaps, the same validation ladder could be applied to pathological regimes, interpreting seizure as dissipation failure and anaesthesia as metabolic collapse.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a port-Hamiltonian/GNN model of cortical dynamics. The state is an alpha-band phase/frequency phasor vector; the Hamiltonian is decomposed into five band sub-energies; the skew-symmetric coupling J(x) is gated by an empirical alpha-band phase-locking value (PLV); dissipation is a diagonal positive-semidefinite R(x) learned with a softplus network; and the training loss combines kinematic reconstruction with passivity, energy-balance, PLV, and PAC regularizers. The model is trained on ~1.1M phasor samples from the PhysioNet EEGMMIDB with three held-out subjects, reaching a held-out kinematic MSE of 1.30e-4. The free-running stochastic model is then scored against model-independent invariants: avalanche branching is reported as sigma = 1.00 versus a measured 0.94 (pass), while the 1/f spectral slope (1.96 vs 1.18) and DFA exponent (1.68 vs 0.68) fail. The paper frames the branching result as evidence for the port-Hamiltonian/metriplectic structure and outlines an extensive upgrade path toward closed-loop neuromodulation.

Significance. The paper has real strengths: it reports a leakage-free by-subject split, it states its validation ladder explicitly, it honestly reports the failed spectral and DFA rungs, and it makes code and data availability commitments. If the branching match were robust and attributable to the metriplectic structure, it would be a noteworthy result. However, the sole passing invariant is not established as a consequence of the advertised physics: the implemented model is not the non-equilibrium steady-state system described in the theory, the PLV-based connectome validation is circular, and the branching result depends on an uncalibrated noise temperature. The significance is therefore substantially below what the abstract claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [II E, III F, V A] The implemented and validated model is not the metriplectic NESS system described in the theory. Equation (8) introduces the metabolic port b_met(x) and the irreversible bracket M∇S, and Eq. (10) defines a steady-state power balance P_met = P_diss. But the training loss (19b) explicitly penalizes positive energy increase via L_p = E[ReLU(H_dot)], and Eq. (19c) enforces the port-Hamiltonian power balance without any metabolic port. The stochastic free-run (Eq. 11) also omits b_met. Thus the validated dynamics are a passive stochastic system, not the NESS system with a metabolic supply; the branching result cannot be credited to the metriplectic non-equilibrium structure.
  2. [V A, Eq. (11)] The branching result sigma = 1.00 versus 0.94 is the only passing rung, but it is not shown to be a prediction of the port-Hamiltonian/metriplectic structure. The noise covariance is sigma sigma^T = 2 T R(x), with T = 0.2 chosen without a priori justification or sensitivity analysis. Since R(x) is a learned MLP whose overall scale is not pinned by the loss, T and R(x) enter multiplicatively and the effective noise amplitude is effectively free. The deterministic noiseless rollout produces no avalanches by construction, so the fluctuation level is doing the work. The paper provides no T-sweep, no null model with J=0, and no comparison with a generic diffusion process having the same covariance. A non-critical stochastic process can produce descendant/ancestor ratios near 1 under suitable thresholding.
  3. [III C, Eq. (16), IV D, Fig. 10] The connectome validation is circular. The learned coupling J(x) is multiplied by the measured alpha PLV matrix in Eq. (16), and the PLV coherence prior L_PLV in Eq. (19d) explicitly anchors |J| to the same measured PLV. Figure 10b then reports a positive association between |J| and the empirical alpha PLV as evidence of anchoring. That association is enforced by the loss and the multiplicative gate, not discovered independently. It therefore cannot serve as evidence that the model 'recovers' synchrony structure.
  4. [III H, V A] The avalanche estimator is not clearly defined on the model output. The model state is x = [phi, omega] (Eq. 5), i.e., phase and angular frequency variables, not an EEG voltage or amplitude. Section III H describes thresholding a 'multichannel signal' at 2.5 standard deviations to define avalanches, but Section V A does not specify what observable of the free-run is thresholded, how it relates to the recorded EEG, or how the same estimator is applied to both. Without this specification, the reported sigma = 1.00 is not interpretable as a cortical avalanche branching parameter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [V A vs Fig. 9] The text states the model's aperiodic exponent is beta = 1.96, while the Fig. 9 caption gives beta ~ 2.1 for the same model spectrum. Please reconcile the two numbers.
  2. [II E] Eq. (3) is introduced in Section II A, but Section II E refers to 'the Stuart-Landau oscillator of Section II E'. The cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [III F] The notation in Eq. (19d), f|J| - PLV(alpha) with tilde over PLV, is not defined precisely. Specify the normalization and the Frobenius-norm indexing.
  4. [II E, V A] Equation (11) drops the metabolic port b_met that appears in Eq. (8), without comment. Either include it consistently or state explicitly that the implemented free-run neglects the metabolic port and justify that simplification.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract claims the model is a 'physically principled, structure-preserving substrate for closed-loop neuromodulation', but the paper itself notes in Section V I that only about 5% of the state space is directly reachable with the three anatomical ports and that closed-loop control results are deferred. Softening the abstract claim would better match the evidence.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Two validation rungs reduce to model inputs: the PLV-connectome correlation is forced by Eq. 16 + Eq. 19d, and the branching pass is attributed by the paper itself to an uncalibrated noise channel (T=0.2, learned R(x)); the honest 1/f and DFA failures keep the paper partially independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III C (Eq. 16), Section III F (Eq. 19d), Section V A (Fig. 10b)]
    "The alpha-band phase-locking matrix then acts as a multiplicative coupling prior, J(x)←J(x)⊙PLV(α), suppressing off-diagonal coupling wherever empirical phase coherence is absent. ... LPLV = ‖ |J| − PLV(α) ‖²_F ... anchors the coupling magnitude to empirically measured synchrony. ... [T]he learned coupling magnitude |Jjk| is ... positively associated with the empirical alpha PLV prior across all channel pairs (Spearman ρ=0.08, p<0.001) — the mechanism by which the model's functional connectome is anchored to measured synchrony rather than free to invent coupling."

    The connectome is gated by the measured alpha PLV (Eq. 16: J←J⊙PLV(α)) and the training loss explicitly anchors |J| to that same PLV (Eq. 19d). Reporting the resulting association as evidence that coupling is 'anchored to measured synchrony' is validating the model against its own construction: a multiplicative gate forces near-zero coupling wherever the prior is zero, so a positive association with the prior is guaranteed rather than discovered. Because the gate suppresses rather than prescribes, the correlation is modest, but its direction and existence are built in. This is a designed feature exhibited, not an independent validation rung; Table II rung 2 (source-space connectivity on held-out subjects) is not demonstrated.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V A; Eq. 11 (Section II E)]
    "Because criticality is a fluctuation phenomenon, the theory-correct free-run of a metriplectic non-equilibrium steady-state model is the fluctuation–dissipation-consistent stochastic rollout (Eq. 11) at an arousal temperature T = 0.2; the noiseless deterministic rollout is reported as a reference and, as expected, relaxes onto a low-dimensional orbit that produces no avalanches. ... The stochastic free-run reproduces near-critical avalanche dynamics, with a branching parameter σ = 1.00 against the real 0.94 — the metriplectic fluctuation structure generates self-organised near-critical activit"

    The only passing rung (branching σ≈1) is produced by the stochastic channel with covariance σσᵀ=2TR(x) (Eq. 11), where T=0.2 is set without reported calibration or sensitivity analysis and R(x) is a learned MLP whose scale is not pinned by the loss. The paper states that the noiseless rollout produces no avalanches, so the fluctuation amplitude is what generates the avalanches; the advertised metabolic port b_met (Eq. 8) is absent from the rollout, so the pass applies to a differently-structured stochastic dissipative system. Without a noise-level sweep or a null model, σ≈1 is not established as a port-Hamiltonian prediction — the fitted noise level may be doing the work — so the central positive validation reduces to an uncalibrated fitted input.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained: there is no self-citation chain (the author cites only external, standard references such as van der Schaft, Morrison/Grmela/Öttinger, and Beggs & Plenz), the by-subject leakage-free split is a genuine methodological control, and the two failing rungs (1/f slope β=1.96 vs 1.18; DFA α=1.68 vs 0.68) are honestly reported and are independent, non-circular results that let the reader falsify the model. What raises the score to 6 is that the paper's positive evidence reduces, in part, to its own construction. The functional-connectivity correlation (Fig. 10b) is forced by the multiplicative PLV gate (Eq. 16) plus the PLV-anchoring loss (Eq. 19d) — a by-construction association presented as the 'mechanism' of anchoring and reported in the validation section. The branching pass, the single strongest positive rung, is explicitly attributed by the paper to the fluctuation–dissipation noise at T=0.2, with the noiseless model producing no avalanches; since T and the learned R(x) scale are uncalibrated and no sensitivity or null model is given, the σ≈1 result is at risk of being a tuned noise-amplitude artifact rather than a metriplectic prediction. The paper itself flags the uncalibrated energy budget and the failed rungs in its Limitations, which is honest and prevents a higher score, but the central claim that the port-Hamiltonian structure reproduces a model-independent criticality invariant is not yet demonstrated. Overall: partial circularity (score 6), not full circularity: the spectral and DFA failures are genuine independent content, and the branching target itself (Table I: σ=0.942±0.041) is measured independently of the fitted model.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model pulls almost all of its physical content from axioms: pH theory, Hopf/Stuart-Landau normal form, and fluctuation-dissipation. The two entities the paper adds — metabolic port and entropy functional — are never implemented. The central criticality result depends on the hand-chosen T=0.2 and the learned dissipation R(x). The PLV gating is trained against measured PLV and therefore is partly self-referential.

free parameters (4)
  • arousal temperature T = T=0.2 (stochastic free-run, Sec. V A)
    Controls noise amplitude via σσ^T=2TR(x); directly influences avalanche branching and is not justified a priori.
  • loss weights λ_k, λ_p, λ_eb, λ_PLV, λ_PAC = 1.0, 0.5, 0.1, 0.05, 0.02
    Hand-set in Eq. 19; balance kinematic accuracy, passivity, energy balance, PLV prior, and PAC regularizer; no optimization or justification.
  • per-channel baseline dissipation r0_j = learned, 64 values
    Eq. 17; learned decay rates with no physiological calibration; these affect spectral flattening and noise-driven criticality.
  • GNN/MLP weights for H(x), J(x), R(x) = optimized on 1,109,250 training samples
    The surrogate network parameters are the model; they are fitted to data, not derived from physics.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Port-Hamiltonian passivity inequality ˙H=-∇H^T R∇H + y^T u holds for the cortical energy surrogate
    Background from van der Schaft & Jeltsema, used in Eq. 2; the paper applies this to a learned H(x) without proving H is a physical energy.
  • domain assumption Stuart-Landau oscillators near Hopf bifurcation describe EEG band oscillations
    Eq. 3; cited Strogatz, but macroscale EEG is not shown to be near a Hopf bifurcation.
  • domain assumption Scalp-EEG alpha PLV measures true neural coupling rather than volume conduction
    Eqs. 7, 16 use PLV as the coupling prior; Sec. V D admits zero-lag PLV is inflated by volume conduction, so the gate may encode field spread.
  • ad hoc to paper Metriplectic degeneracy J∇S=0 and M∇H=0 with an unspecified entropy S can be imposed on cortical dynamics
    Eqs. 8-9; S(x) is never defined, so the degeneracy and the dissipation relation R=-M∇²S(∇H)^+ are asserted, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Fluctuation-dissipation relation σσ^T=2TR(x) with a single scalar temperature T applies to EEG
    Eq. 11; no empirical support; T=0.2 is hand-selected for the free run.
invented entities (3)
  • metabolic port b_met(x)
    purpose: Balances dissipation on the resting limit cycle to sustain a non-equilibrium steady state (Eqs. 8-10)
    Advertised as a first-class model element but not present in the fitted loss or the validated free-run; no metabolic measurement is used.
  • cortical entropy functional S(x)
    purpose: Underpins the metriplectic irreversible bracket and degeneracy conditions (Eqs. 8-9)
    No closed form or estimator is given, so the claimed degeneracy cannot be checked.
  • single 'arousal temperature' T
    purpose: Sets fluctuation-dissipation noise amplitude (Eq. 11) and places cognitive states on an arousal axis
    No physiological measurement supports it; it operates as a tuning knob in the validation rollout.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning the Brain's Dynamics as a Port-Hamiltonian System: A GNN-Surrogate Metriplectic Twin for Non-Equilibrium Cortical Dynamics and Closed-Loop Neuromodulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4KIMJ2A

@misc{pith2026260710439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning the Brain's Dynamics as a Port-Hamiltonian System: A GNN-Surrogate Metriplectic Twin for Non-Equilibrium Cortical Dynamics and Closed-Loop Neuromodulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4KIMJ2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10439}
}
abstract

We model human motor cortex, recorded during rest and motor-imagery BCI conditions, as a port-Hamiltonian system: a conservative interconnection (skew-symmetric coupling between band-limited neural phasors) together with a dissipative port whose state-dependent decay is set by a graph-neural-network surrogate. The Hamiltonian is resolved into five interpretable frequency sub-energies, and a phase-locking prior measured from the recordings gates the learned functional connectome so that coupling is admitted only where phase coherence is present. A metriplectic formulation places the resting cortex at a non-equilibrium steady state sustained by an explicit metabolic port, with a fluctuation-dissipation-consistent noise channel governed by a single arousal temperature. Fitting the model to 'FitTrainN' phasor samples from the PhysioNet EEG Motor Movement/Imagery database, under a leakage-free split with three subjects held out entirely, yields a held-out kinematic reconstruction error of 'FitTestMSE' that is stable across random seeds. We then score the free-running model against model-independent dynamical invariants it did not author: it reproduces near-critical avalanche branching ($\sigma\approx1$) but not yet the aperiodic $1/f$ spectral slope or the long-range temporal correlations of real cortex a concrete, falsifiable gap that we trace to specific, testable upgrades. The port-Hamiltonian structure supplies neuroanatomically grounded stimulation ports with stability guarantees, positioning the model as a physically principled, structure-preserving substrate for closed-loop neuromodulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10439 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Phasor-coordinate extraction from EEGMMIDB (subject S001, eyes-open rest, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Functional connectivity from EEGMMIDB (subject S001, eyes-open rest). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: EEGMMIDB dynamical invariants across 60 recordings (12 subjects), broken out by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Training convergence fitting the metriplectic pHNN to EEGMMIDB phasors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Validation ladder: the free-running fitted metriplectic pHNN scored against real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: EEGMMIDB dynamical invariants across 60 recordings (12 subjects), broken out by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Aperiodic power spectrum, real EEG versus the fitted model’s stochastic free-run [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Training convergence fitting the metriplectic pHNN to EEGMMIDB phasors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Seed robustness of the fit (three random seeds, 400 epochs each; the composite-loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Validation ladder: the free-running fitted metriplectic pHNN scored against real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Aperiodic power spectrum, real EEG versus the fitted model’s stochastic free-run [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The learned physical operators of the fitted metriplectic pHNN (seed 0). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Oxford University Press, New York, 2006

    Gy¨ orgy Buzs´ aki.Rhythms of the Brain. Oxford University Press, New York, 2006

    2006

  2. [2]

    A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update.Journal of Neural Engineering, 15(3):031005, 2018

    Fabien Lotte, Laurent Bougrain, Andrzej Cichocki, Maureen Clerc, Marco Congedo, Alain Rakotomamonjy, and Florian Yger. A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update.Journal of Neural Engineering, 15(3):031005, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Hamiltonian neural networks

    Samuel Greydanus, Misko Dzamba, and Jason Yosinski. Hamiltonian neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32, pages 15379–15389. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Zhong, Biswadip Dey, and Amit Chakraborty

    Yaofeng D. Zhong, Biswadip Dey, and Amit Chakraborty. Dissipative SymODEN: Encoding Hamiltonian dynamics with dissipation and control into deep learning, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Port-Hamiltonian systems theory: An introductory overview.Foundations and Trends in Systems and Control, 1(2–3):173–378, 2014

    Arjan van der Schaft and Dimitri Jeltsema. Port-Hamiltonian systems theory: An introductory overview.Foundations and Trends in Systems and Control, 1(2–3):173–378, 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Strogatz.Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering

    Steven H. Strogatz.Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2nd edition, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Springer, Berlin, 1984

    Yoshiki Kuramoto.Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence. Springer, Berlin, 1984

    1984

  8. [8]

    Fronto-parietal EEG coherence in theta and upper alpha reflect central executive functions of working memory

    Paul Sauseng, Wolfgang Klimesch, Manuel Schabus, and Michael Doppelmayr. Fronto-parietal EEG coherence in theta and upper alpha reflect central executive functions of working memory. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 57(2):97–103, 2005

    2005

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    The theta-gamma neural code.Neuron, 77(6):1002–1016, 2013

    John Lisman and Ole Jensen. The theta-gamma neural code.Neuron, 77(6):1002–1016, 2013. 32

    2013

  2. [10]

    Jirsa, and Anthony R

    Gustavo Deco, Viktor K. Jirsa, and Anthony R. McIntosh. Emerging concepts for the dynamical organization of resting-state activity in the brain.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(1):43–56, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Dynamic models of large-scale brain activity.Nature Neuroscience, 20(3):340–352, 2017

    Michael Breakspear. Dynamic models of large-scale brain activity.Nature Neuroscience, 20(3):340–352, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Morrison

    Philip J. Morrison. A paradigm for joined Hamiltonian and dissipative systems.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 18(1–3):410–419, 1986

    1986

  5. [13]

    ¨Ottinger

    Miroslav Grmela and Hans C. ¨Ottinger. Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids. I. development of a general formalism (GENERIC).Physical Review E, 56(6):6620–6632, 1997

    1997

  6. [14]

    Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, 2005

    Hans Christian ¨Ottinger.Beyond Equilibrium Thermodynamics. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, 2005

    2005

  7. [15]

    The fluctuation-dissipation theorem.Reports on Progress in Physics, 29(1):255– 284, 1966

    Ryogo Kubo. The fluctuation-dissipation theorem.Reports on Progress in Physics, 29(1):255– 284, 1966

    1966

  8. [16]

    McFarland, Thilo Hinterberger, Niels Birbaumer, and Jonathan R

    Gerwin Schalk, Dennis J. McFarland, Thilo Hinterberger, Niels Birbaumer, and Jonathan R. Wolpaw. BCI2000: A general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system.IEEE Transac- tions on Biomedical Engineering, 51(6):1034–1043, 2004

    2004

  9. [17]

    Goldberger, Luis A

    Ary L. Goldberger, Luis A. N. Amaral, Leon Glass, Jeffrey M. Hausdorff, Plamen Ch. Ivanov, Roger G. Mark, Joseph E. Mietus, George B. Moody, Chung-Kang Peng, and H. Eugene Stanley. PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: Components of a new research resource for complex phys...

    2000

  10. [18]

    Identifying true brain interaction from EEG data using the imaginary part of coherency

    Guido Nolte, Ou Bai, Lewis Wheaton, Zoltan Mari, Sherry Vorbach, and Mark Hallett. Identifying true brain interaction from EEG data using the imaginary part of coherency. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(10):2292–2307, 2004

    2004

  11. [19]

    Stam, Guido Nolte, and Andreas Daffertshofer

    Cornelis J. Stam, Guido Nolte, and Andreas Daffertshofer. Phase lag index: Assessment of functional connectivity from multi channel EEG and MEG with diminished bias from common sources.Human Brain Mapping, 28(11):1178–1193, 2007

    2007

  12. [20]

    Martin Vinck, Robert Oostenveld, Marijn van Wingerden, Francesco Battaglia, and Cyriel M. A. Pennartz. An improved index of phase-synchronization for electrophysiological data in the presence of volume-conduction, noise and sample-size bias.NeuroImage, 55(4):1548–1565, 2011. 33

    2011

  13. [21]

    Pascual-Marqui, Dietrich Lehmann, Martha Koukkou, Kieko Kochi, Peter Anderer, Bernd Saletu, Hideki Tanaka, Koichi Hirata, E

    Roberto D. Pascual-Marqui, Dietrich Lehmann, Martha Koukkou, Kieko Kochi, Peter Anderer, Bernd Saletu, Hideki Tanaka, Koichi Hirata, E. Roy John, Leslie Prichep, Rolando Biscay- Lirio, and Toshihiko Kinoshita. Assessing interactions in the brain with exact low-resolution elect...

    1952

  14. [22]

    Knock, M

    Paula Sanz Leon, Stuart A. Knock, M. Marmaduke Woodman, Lia Domide, Jochen Mersmann, Anthony R. McIntosh, and Viktor Jirsa. The Virtual Brain: a simulator of primate brain network dynamics.Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 7:10, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Resting-state functional connectivity emerges from structurally and dynamically shaped slow fluctuations.Journal of Neuroscience, 33(27):11239–11252, 2013

    Gustavo Deco, Adri´ an Ponce-Alvarez, Dante Mantini, Gian Luca Romani, Patric Hagmann, and Maurizio Corbetta. Resting-state functional connectivity emerges from structurally and dynamically shaped slow fluctuations.Journal of Neuroscience, 33(27):11239–11252, 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Jansen and Vincent G

    Ben H. Jansen and Vincent G. Rit. Electroencephalogram and visual evoked potential generation in a mathematical model of coupled cortical columns.Biological Cybernetics, 73(4):357–366, 1995

    1995

  17. [25]

    A recurrent network mechanism of time integration in perceptual decisions.Journal of Neuroscience, 26(4):1314–1328, 2006

    Kong-Fatt Wong and Xiao-Jing Wang. A recurrent network mechanism of time integration in perceptual decisions.Journal of Neuroscience, 26(4):1314–1328, 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    Beggs and Dietmar Plenz

    John M. Beggs and Dietmar Plenz. Neuronal avalanches in neocortical circuits.Journal of Neuroscience, 23(35):11167–11177, 2003

    2003

  19. [27]

    Nikouline, J

    Klaus Linkenkaer-Hansen, Vadim V. Nikouline, J. Matias Palva, and Risto J. Ilmoniemi. Long-range temporal correlations and scaling behavior in human brain oscillations.Journal of Neuroscience, 21(4):1370–1377, 2001

    2001

  20. [28]

    The frontier of simulation-based inference

    Kyle Cranmer, Johann Brehmer, and Gilles Louppe. The frontier of simulation-based inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30055–30062, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Peterson, Paroma Varma, Priyadarshini Sebastian, Richard Gao, Torben Noto, Antonio H

    Thomas Donoghue, Matar Haller, Erik J. Peterson, Paroma Varma, Priyadarshini Sebastian, Richard Gao, Torben Noto, Antonio H. Lara, Jonathan D. Wallis, Robert T. Knight, Dario L. Bhatt, and Bradley Voytek. Parameterizing neural power spectra into periodic and aperiodic componen...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Casali, Olivia Gosseries, Mario Rosanova, M´ elanie Boly, Simone Sarasso, Karina R

    Adenauer G. Casali, Olivia Gosseries, Mario Rosanova, M´ elanie Boly, Simone Sarasso, Karina R. Casali, Silvia Casarotto, Marie-Aur´ elie Bruno, Steven Laureys, Giulio Tononi, and Marcello Massimini. A theoretically based index of consciousness independent of sensory processin...

    2013

  23. [31]

    Interconnection and damping assignment passivity-based control of port-controlled Hamiltonian systems

    Romeo Ortega, Arjan van der Schaft, Bernhard Maschke, and Gerardo Escobar. Interconnection and damping assignment passivity-based control of port-controlled Hamiltonian systems. Automatica, 38(4):585–596, 2002

    2002

  24. [32]

    Saturnino

    Axel Thielscher, Andr´ e Antunes, and Guilherme B. Saturnino. Field modeling for transcranial magnetic stimulation: A useful tool to understand the physiological effects of TMS? In37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMB...

    2015

  25. [33]

    Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew M

    Zongyi Li, Nikola B. Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew M. Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    The non-invasive Berlin Brain-Computer Interface: Fast acquisition of effective perfor- mance in untrained subjects.NeuroImage, 37(2):539–550, 2007

    Benjamin Blankertz, Guido Dornhege, Matthias Krauledat, Klaus-Robert M¨ uller, and Gabriel Curio. The non-invasive Berlin Brain-Computer Interface: Fast acquisition of effective perfor- mance in untrained subjects.NeuroImage, 37(2):539–550, 2007. 35

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.