ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Revisiting post-stimulus theta activity: evidence for an aperiodic rather than oscillatory origin.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aperiodic, 1/f-like component of electrophysiological activity is increasingly recognized as a meaningful feature of neural function, rather than background noise. In parallel, many EEG studies report transient changes in oscillatory power following stimulus onset and interpret these effects as signatures of attention, salience, or cognitive control. However, such conclusions usually rely on baseline normalization procedures that assume aperiodic activity remains stable from pre- to post-stimulus periods. Using high-density EEG recordings from typically developing children, we tested this assumption in two paradigms: an audiovisual simple reaction-time task (n = 36) and a visual oddball task (n = 38). For each task, conventional spectral analyses were compared with analyses that explicitly modeled and removed the aperiodic component in both pre- and post-stimulus windows. Across tasks, stimulus onset was associated with robust increases in aperiodic exponent and offset, indicating systematic changes in the 1/f component of the spectrum. In the audiovisual task, these changes were modality-specific, with central, parieto-occipital, or combined topographies depending on stimulus type. These effects were reduced but remained significant after ERP removal, indicating that they were not fully explained by phase-locked activity. Critically, once aperiodic activity was accounted for, the apparent poststimulus increase in theta power was largely abolished in both tasks, including the canonical fronto-central theta enhancement to infrequent targets in the oddball paradigm. The conventional method also overestimated the magnitude of beta desynchronization, particularly in the induced (ERP-removed) signal. The apparent gamma desynchronization detected by conventional analyses was reversed after aperiodic correction, revealing either synchronization or no change, indicating that it reflects a spurious consequence of spectral slope steepening rather than a true suppression of gamma oscillatory activity. In contrast, alpha desynchronization remained robust after aperiodic correction and was in fact enhanced, suggesting it reflects genuine oscillatory suppression. Together, these findings indicate that a substantial portion of conventional time-frequency effects, particularly apparent theta synchronization, may reflect changes in aperiodic activity in response to stimulation rather than genuine periodic oscillations, challenging core assumptions of conventional time-frequency analyses.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.