MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Removing Eye‐movement Artifacts from the EEG during the Intracarotid Amobarbital Procedure

2005· article· en· W2011613020 on OpenAlexafffund
Weidong Zhou, Jean Gotman

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsElectroencephalographyIndependent component analysisEye movementAmobarbitalScalpElectrooculographyPsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionEpilepsyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The EEG is often recorded during the intracarotid amobarbital procedure (IAP) to help in the assessment of the spatial extent and the duration of the effect of the drug. In scalp recordings, the EEG is always heavily contaminated with eye movement artifacts as the patient actively performs visual tasks. METHODS: Independent component analysis (ICA) is a new technique for blind source separation. In this study, we separated the EEG data recorded during the IAP into independent components using ICA. The EEG signal was reconstructed by excluding the components related to eye movement and eye blinks. RESULTS: EEGs from 10 IAP tests were analyzed. The experimental results indicate that ICA is very efficient at subtracting eye-movement artifacts, while retaining the EEG slow waves and making their interpretation easier. CONCLUSIONS: ICA appears to be a generally applicable and effective method for removing ocular artifacts from EEG recordings during IAP, although slow waves and ocular artifacts share similar frequency distributions.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
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

Citations40
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207