MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2020171940 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2009.5332802

A self-paced BCI using stationary wavelet packets

2009· article· en· W2020171940 on OpenAlexaff
Farhad Faradji, Rabab Ward, Gary E. Birch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive modelComputer scienceWavelet packet decompositionWaveletPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceStationary wavelet transformBrain–computer interfaceSpeech recognitionNetwork packetLinear discriminant analysisClassifier (UML)Wavelet transformQuadratic classifierMachine learningElectroencephalographyStatisticsMathematicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stationary wavelet packet analysis is exploited for the first time in the design of a self-paced BCI based on mental tasks. The BCI system is custom designed to achieve a zero false positive rate, as false activations highly restricts the applications of BCIs in real life. The EEG signals of four subjects performing five different mental tasks are used as the dataset. The stationary wavelet packets decompose the signal into eight components. The features used are the autoregressive coefficients obtained by applying autoregressive modeling on the resultant wavelet components. Classification is a two-stage process. The first stage is based on quadratic discriminant analysis which is extremely fast. The second stage is a simple majority voting classifier. During model selection, which is performed via 5-folded cross-validation, the combination of decomposed components and the autoregressive model order that yield the best performance are selected. Results show enhancements in the overall performance for three subjects comparing to our previously designed BCI.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces→French-language works237,207→