MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987596210 · doi:10.1109/embc.2012.6347171

Brain source localization based on fast fully adaptive approach

2012· article· en· W1987596210 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Ravan, J.P. Reilly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive beamformerComputer scienceBeamformingContext (archaeology)Signal processingElectroencephalographyAdaptive filterBootstrapping (finance)Array processingSpace-time adaptive processingDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)RadarSpeech recognitionAlgorithmMathematicsTelecommunicationsRadar engineering detailsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the electroencephalogram (EEG) or magnetoencephalogram (MEG) context, brain source localization (beamforming) methods often fail when the number of observations is small. This is particularly true when measuring evoked potentials, especially when the number of electrodes is large. Due to the nonstationarity of the EEG/MEG, an adaptive capability is desirable. Previous work has addressed these issues by reducing the adaptive degrees of freedom (DoFs). This paper develops and tests a new multistage adaptive processing for brain source localization that has been previously used for radar statistical signal processing application with uniform linear antenna array. This processing, referred to as the fast fully adaptive (FFA) approach, could significantly reduce the required sample support and computational complexity, while still processing all available DoFs. The performance improvement offered by the FFA approach in comparison to the fully adaptive minimum variance beamforming (MVB) with limited data is demonstrated by bootstrapping simulated data to evaluate the variability of the source location.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207