MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103677028 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2006.873700

The Adaptive Chirplet Transform and Visual Evoked Potentials

2006· article· en· W2103677028 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectrogramChirpTime–frequency analysisPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceVisualizationSpeech recognitionGaussianInstantaneous phaseMatching pursuitTransient (computer programming)Computer visionAlgorithmOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new approach based upon the adaptive chirplet transform (ACT) to characterize the time-dependent behavior of the visual evoked potential (VEP) from its initial transient portion (tVEP) to the steady-state portion (ssVEP). This approach employs a matching pursuit (MP) algorithm to estimate the chirplets and then a maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) algorithm to refine the results. The ACT decomposes signals into Gaussian chirplet basis functions with four adjustable parameters, i.e., time-spread, chirp rate, time-center and frequency-center. In this paper, we show how these four parameters can be used to distinguish between the transient and the steady-state phase of the response. We also show that as few as three chirplets are required to represent a VEP response. Compared to decomposition with Gabor logons, a more compact representation can be achieved by using Gaussian chirplets. Finally, we argue that the adaptive chirplet spectrogram gives a superior visualization of VEP signals' time-frequency structures when compared to the conventional spectrogram.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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