MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035986876 · doi:10.1109/embc.2013.6609663

Application of a variation of empirical mode decomposition and teager energy operator to EEG signals for mental task classification

2013· article· en· W2035986876 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Kaleem, Aziz Guergachi, Sridhar Krishnan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHilbert–Huang transformEnergy operatorPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceElectroencephalographyComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Feature extractionEnergy (signal processing)Speech recognitionPrincipal component analysisTime–frequency analysisMathematicsStatisticsComputer visionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a simple and effective methodology for mental task classification using a novel variation of the empirical mode decomposition (EMD) algorithm and the Teager energy operator applied to electroencephalography (EEG) signals. EEG signals corresponding to various types of mental tasks performed by human subjects are decomposed using the variation of EMD, called Empirical Mode Decomposition-Modified Peak Selection (EMD-MPS), which allows direct separation of the signals into a de-trended component, and a trend, according to a frequency separation criterion. Teager energy operator is then applied to calculate the average energy values of both components obtained after signal decomposition using EMD-MPS. These energy values are used to construct feature vectors, and one-versus-one classification of mental tasks is performed using a simple classifier, namely the 1-NN classifier. An average correct classification rate of 87% is obtained, improving on previous results and thereby also demonstrating the effectiveness of the methodology.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207