MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989936650 · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/3/2/008

Different classification techniques considering brain computer interface applications

2006· article· en· W1989936650 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceElectroencephalographyPattern recognition (psychology)Bayesian probabilityHidden Markov modelMachine learningArtificial neural networkInterface (matter)Classifier (UML)Support vector machineMutual informationNaive Bayes classifierField (mathematics)Linear classifierMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work the application of different machine learning techniques for classification of mental tasks from electroencephalograph (EEG) signals is investigated. The main application for this research is the improvement of brain computer interface (BCI) systems. For this purpose, Bayesian graphical network, neural network, Bayesian quadratic, Fisher linear and hidden Markov model classifiers are applied to two known EEG datasets in the BCI field. The Bayesian network classifier is used for the first time in this work for classification of EEG signals. The Bayesian network appeared to have a significant accuracy and more consistent classification compared to the other four methods. In addition to classical correct classification accuracy criteria, the mutual information is also used to compare the classification results with other BCI groups.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.268
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