MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993215050 · doi:10.1109/civemsa.2014.6841436

An incremental framework for classification of EEG signals using quantum particle swarm optimization

2014· article· en· W1993215050 on OpenAlexaff
Kaveh Hassani, Won‐Sook Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceElectroencephalographyBrain–computer interfaceArtificial intelligenceParticle swarm optimizationPattern recognition (psychology)Task (project management)Set (abstract data type)RecallSpeech recognitionMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classification of electroencephalographic (EEG) signals is a sophisticated task that determines the accuracy of thought pattern recognition performed by computer-brain interface (BCI) which, in turn, determines the degree of naturalness of the interaction provided by that system. However, classifying the EEG signals is not a trivial task due to their non-stationary characteristics. In this paper, we introduce and utilize incremental quantum particle swarm optimization (IQPSO) algorithm for incremental classification of EEG data stream. IQPSO builds the classification model as a set of explicit rules which benefits from semantic symbolic knowledge representation and enhanced comprehensibility. We compared the performance of IQPSO against ten other classifiers on two EEG datasets. The results suggest that IQPSO outperforms other classifiers in terms of classification accuracy, precision and recall.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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