MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092905247 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2013.2280143

A Constrained ICA Approach for Real-Time Cardiac Artifact Rejection in Magnetoencephalography

2013· article· en· W2092905247 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lukas Breuer, Jürgen Dammers, Timothy P. L. Roberts, N. Jon Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsInfomaxMagnetoencephalographyIndependent component analysisFastICAComputer scienceArtifact (error)Artificial intelligenceSignal processingPattern recognition (psychology)SIGNAL (programming language)Brain–computer interfaceSpeech recognitionElectroencephalographyBlind signal separationDigital signal processingNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, magnetoencephalography (MEG)-based real-time brain computing interfaces (BCI) have been developed to enable novel and promising methods of neuroscience research and therapy. Artifact rejection prior to source localization largely enhances the localization accuracy. However, many BCI approaches neglect real-time artifact removal due to its time consuming processing. With cardiac artifact rejection for real-time analysis (CARTA), we introduce a novel algorithm capable of real-time cardiac artifact (CA) rejection. The method is based on constrained independent component analysis (ICA), where a priori information of the underlying source signal is used to optimize and accelerate signal decomposition. In CARTA, this is performed by estimating the subject's individual density distribution of the cardiac activity, which leads to a subject-specific signal decomposition algorithm. We show that the new method is capable of effectively reducing CAs within one iteration and a time delay of 1 ms. In contrast, Infomax and Extended Infomax ICA converged not until seven iterations, while FastICA needs at least ten iterations. CARTA was tested and applied to data from three different but most common MEG systems (4-D-Neuroimaging, VSM MedTech Inc., and Elekta Neuromag). Therefore, the new method contributes to reliable signal analysis utilizing BCI approaches.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207