MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105813183 · doi:10.1109/ner.2009.5109381

Detection and removal of ocular artifacts using Independent Component Analysis and wavelets

2009· article· en· W2105813183 on OpenAlexaff
Hosna Ghandeharion, H. Ahmadi‐Noubari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletThresholdingArtificial intelligenceArtifact (error)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceDiscrete wavelet transformIndependent component analysisSIGNAL (programming language)Noise reductionSecond-generation wavelet transformBasis (linear algebra)Wavelet packet decompositionBasis functionNoise (video)Wavelet transformStationary wavelet transformAlgorithmComputer visionMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper a novel approach for ocular artifact (OA) removal is proposed in which a combination of independent component analysis and wavelet-based noise reduction is utilized for detection and removal of OA. At the first stage, independent basis functions attributed to OA are computed using FastICA algorithm. This is followed by designing a wavelet basis function which is tuned to have sufficient similarity in its waveform to the independent basis functions of OA. We then utilize the designed wavelet for signal decomposition in a standard discrete wavelet transform where by deleting the approximation and summing up the details of signal decomposition, we arrive at a sufficiently artifact-free EEG signal. The approach excludes thresholding challenges of wavelets and works both for eye blinks and eye movements. Applying our algorithm to 420 4-s EEG epochs, the method exhibits high performance for the removal of OA artifacts. Our wavelet design method for noise reduction can be extended to the removal other types of EEG artifacts.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207