MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103374058 · doi:10.1142/s0129065715500148

Electrode Fusion for the Prediction of Self-Initiated Fine Movements from Single-Trial Readiness Potentials

2015· article· en· W2103374058 on OpenAlexaff
Elias Abou Zeid, Tom Chau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neural Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceElectroencephalographyArtificial intelligenceTask (project management)Brain activity and meditationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBrain–computer interfacePattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyAudiologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current human-machine interfaces (HMIs) for users with severe disabilities often have difficulty distinguishing between intentional and inadvertent activations. Pre-movement neuro-cortical activity may aid in this elusive discrimination task but has not been exploited in HMIs. This work investigates the utility of the readiness potential (RP), a slow negative cortical potential preceding voluntary movement, for detecting the intention of self-initiated fine movements prior to their motoric realization. We recorded electroencephalography from the frontal, central, parietal and occipital lobes of 10 participants using a self-initiated switch activation protocol. Eye movement artifacts were removed by regression and the RP was detected on a single-trial basis, in a narrow frequency range (0.1-1 Hz). Common average reference was applied prior to windowed-averaging for feature extraction. Electrodes were selected according to a separability measure based on Fisher projection. Our findings demonstrate that feature fusion from an optimal number of electrodes achieves a statistically significant lower classification error than the best single classifier. Finally, voluntary fine movement intention was detected on a single-trial basis at above-chance levels approximately 396 ms before physical switch activation. These findings encourage the development of rapid-response, intention-aware HMIs for individuals with severe disabilities who struggle with executing voluntary fine motor movements.

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: 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
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Neural SystemsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207