MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128036488 · doi:10.1109/10.827307

Nonlinear adaptive filtering of stimulus artifact

2000· article· en· W2128036488 on OpenAlexaff
R.C.W. Grieve, P.A. Parker, B. Hudgins, Kevin Englehart

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAdaptive filterArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceSomatosensory evoked potentialStimulus (psychology)Speech recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)Evoked potentialArtifact (error)Signal processingAlgorithmDigital signal processingNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noninvasive measurements of somatosensory evoked potentials have both clinical and research applications. The electrical artifact which results from the stimulus is an interference which can distort the evoked signal, and introduce errors in response onset timing estimation. Given that this interference is synchronous with the evoked signal, it cannot be reduced by the conventional technique of ensemble averaging. The technique of adaptive noise cancelling has potential in this regard however, and has been used effectively in other similar problems. An adaptive noise cancelling filter which uses a neural network as the adaptive element is investigated in this application. The filter is implemented and performance determined in the cancelling of artifact for in vivo measurements on the median nerve. A technique of segmented neural network training is proposed in which the network is trained on that segment of the record time window which does not contain the evoked signal. The neural network is found to generalize well from this training to include the segment of the window containing the evoked signal. Both quantitative and qualitative measures show that significant stimulus artifact reduction is achieved.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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