博文
F1000期刊论文的开放同行评审（Open Peer Review）
||
开放同行评审（Open Peer Review）还不多，特别是国内期刊还没有采用，大家可以看看这个实例。
1
Abstract
This study reports the results of a confirmatory experiment testing the hypothesis that it is possible to detect coincidences of a sequence of events (silence-signal) of different length, by analyzing the EEG activity of two human partners spatially separated when one member of the pair receives the stimulation and the second one is connected only mentally with the first.
Seven selected participants with a long friendship and a capacity to maintain focused mental concentration, were divided into two groups located in two different laboratories approximately 190 km apart. Each participant acted both as a “stimulated” and as a “mentally connected” member of the pair for a total of twenty sessions overall.
The offline analysis of EEG activity using a special classification algorithm based on a support vector machine, detected the coincidences in the sequence of events of the stimulation protocol between the EEG activity of the “stimulated” and the “mentally connected” pairs.
Furthermore the correlation of the power spectra of the five EEG frequency bands between each of the twenty pairs of data was analyzed using a bootstrap procedure.
The overall percentage of coincidences out of 88 events was 78.4% and the statistically significant average correlations between the EEG alpha and gamma bands among the pairs of participants, which confirmed the results observed in a pilot study, support the hypothesis that it is possible to connect two brains and hence two minds at distance.
No competing interests were disclosed.
First published: 05 八月 2014, 3:182 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.4336.1)Latest published: 05 八月 2014, 3:182 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.4336.1)- Gerard Ridgway, UCL Institute of Neurology, UKPosted: 17 九月 2014Are the coincidences determined by comparing the sending protocol and the result of decoding the receiver's EEG, or by comparing the results from decoding sender's EEG and receiver's EEG? Figure 1 seems to suggest the former, but the text seems to suggest the latter. If the latter, do coincidences between false positives (i.e. wrongly predicted signal in sender and in receiver) and false negatives (wrongly predicted silence in both sender and receiver) count as coincidences?
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Author Response
Patrizio Tressoldi, Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova, ItalyPosted: 08 九月 2014"Should the statement that "the duration of the first silence segment was also randomized from one to three seconds" read "... one to three minutes"? Otherwise, I can't see that 2s of randomisation makes much difference to signal/silence blocks of 30s/60s."
Reply: You are right. This was a clear typo. We will correct "seconds" with "minutes" in rev.2
"In Figure 1, why do the durations of blocks appear different for different senders? I understood that the number of blocks was randomised (3, 5 or 7) and that the length of the first silence was randomly varied (as above), but that the durations of subsequent signal and silence blocks were fixed at 30s and 60s respectively. Are the different subjects' profiles not drawn to the same temporal scale?"
Reply: In the three examples presented in Figure 1, the first raws represents the stimulation protocol as delivered to the "sender". Apart the length of the first "silence" segment you are right, the should look identical. This was due to a formatting problem, but I confirm the silence segments lasted always 1 minute and the signal segments, 30 secs for all 20 sessions. The length of the segments in the second raws, may be different from the original protocol due to the imprecision of the classifier to identify the exact timing and duration of the silence and signal segments.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Competing Interests: I am the corresponding author- Gerard Ridgway, UCL Institute of Neurology, UKPosted: 05 九月 2014Should the statement that "the duration of the first silence segment was also randomized from one to three seconds" read "... one to three minutes"? Otherwise, I can't see that 2s of randomisation makes much difference to signal/silence blocks of 30s/60s.
In Figure 1, why do the durations of blocks appear different for different senders? I understood that the number of blocks was randomised (3, 5 or 7) and that the length of the first silence was randomly varied (as above), but that the durations of subsequent signal and silence blocks were fixed at 30s and 60s respectively. Are the different subjects' profiles not drawn to the same temporal scale?
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
http://f1000research.com/articles/3-182/v1
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-280034-829680.html
上一篇：研究热点信息平台期刊论文的同行专家评论
下一篇：2014干细胞临床转化国际研讨会 10月13-15日 北京
Open Peer Review 开放同行评审
Current Referee Status:
?Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK
Not Approved: 09 九月 2014
Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Arizona, Tuscon, USA
Approved: 12 八月 2014