Comparison of low-power biopotential processors for on-the-fly spike detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spike detection is a signal processing technique that can enable significant data rate reduction and resource savings in wireless brain monitoring. In these systems, energy-efficient spike detection algorithms are sought for enabling realtime signal processing while consuming low-power. As several spike detectors are based on ASIC, FPGA or low-power microcontroller unit (MCU), such algorithms must add little overhead to the entire system, while ensuring low error rate. In this paper, we present a comparative study of three different spike detection algorithms targeted toward implementation into low-power resource-constrained electronic systems. As practical validation, all candidate algorithms have been implemented on a popular low-power MCU and were fully characterized experimentally using previously recorded neural signals with different signal-to-noise ratios. A cost function based on detection rates, execution times, power consumption and resource utilization have been created and employed for comparing the detectors. The performances of all candidates are reported, and the best detector is identified. All candidate detectors present detection rate above 95% at high SNR, and above 78% for low SNR and can reduce the power consumption by up to 22.7%. This paper is the first to demonstrate the performances and hardware limitations of spike detectors on a low-power MCU system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it