MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126533962 · doi:10.1109/iembs.1995.579291

Adaptive stimulus artifact and ECG reduction in somatosensory evoked potential studies

2002· article· en· W2126533962 on OpenAlexaff
V. Parse, P.A. Parker, Rod C. Scott

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Adaptive filterSomatosensory evoked potentialComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSomatosensory systemPattern recognition (psychology)Artifact (error)Speech recognitionComputer visionNeuroscienceAlgorithmPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SEPs) are an important class of bioelectric signals which contain clinically valuable information. However, surface measurements of these signals are often contaminated by the stimulus artifact which, depending on the stimulating and recording measurement characteristics, may obscure some of the information contained in the SEPs. In addition, the SEP recordings on the spinal cord are also influenced by the more powerful ECG interference. The purpose of this paper is two fold-firstly, the authors apply a nonlinear adaptive filter based on the second order Volterra series to iteratively minimize the stimulus artifact. Secondly, a two stage adaptive filter structure is proposed to simultaneously reduce the ECG and stimulus artifact components for spinal cord SEPs. Preliminary experimental results showing the effectiveness of the proposed filter structures are included.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207