MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1516227855 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.260531

Affective State Control for Neuroprostheses

2006· article· en· W1516227855 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas E. Doyle, Z. Kucerovsky, Adrian Ieta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceComputer scienceInterfacingInterface (matter)Support vector machineHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionElectroencephalographyComputer hardwareNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The control and communication in man and the machine has been an active area of research since the early 1940's and since then the usage of the computing machine for the enhancement, augmentation, and rehabilitation of mankind has been broadly investigated. One active area of such research is the interface of the human brain to the computer; brain-computer-interfacing (BCI) or neuroprostheses. Current examples of functional BCI typically control the computer screen cursor movement, but require extensive subject training and significant, if not full, cognitive focus. Our model proposed an alternative approach to implementing the BCI for the application of controlling a digital hearing aid by autonomously modifying the speech signal based on the identification of electrophysiological response, or an affective state. Using a support vector machine binary classifier our model successfully demonstrated the efficacy of single-trial identification of affective states as an enhanced method of hearing neuroprosthetic control at a communication transfer rate of 240 bits/minute.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207