MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135552098 · doi:10.1109/cne.2005.1419563

A New Design of the Asynchronous Brain Computer Interface Using the Knowledge of the Path of Features

2005· article· en· W2135552098 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Bashashati, Rabab Ward, Gary E. Birch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationBrain–computer interfaceComputer scienceInterface (matter)Movement (music)Range (aeronautics)Human–computer interactionControl (management)Movement controlElectroencephalographyArtificial intelligenceComputer networkPsychologyNeuroscienceEngineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The low-frequency asynchronous switch design (LF-ASD) was introduced as a direct brain computer interface (BCI) technology for asynchronous control applications. The LF-ASD has the advantage that it is operational at any time and not only at specific defined periods. It is activated only when a user intends control, otherwise it maintains an inactive state output. The intended control results from a certain movement attempt such as finger flexion. This paper presents the evaluation of a modified LF-ASD design with data collected from individuals with high-level spinal cord injuries and able-bodied subjects. The modifications are related to incorporating into the system more knowledge about the movement attempt. Specifically, the past values of the features extracted from the EEG signal related to the movement attempts are used. The error characteristics of this new asynchronous brain switch design are significantly better than the previous LF-ASD design, with true positive rate increases of approximately 8.5% for false positive rates in the range of 1-2%

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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