MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138178674 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2003.816076

Temporally constrained ica: an application to artifact rejection in electromagnetic brain signal analysis

2003· article· en· W2138178674 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C.J. James, Oliver Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalAston University
KeywordsIndependent component analysisA priori and a posterioriArtifact (error)SIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceSignal processingWaveformPattern recognition (psychology)Blind signal separationArtificial intelligenceMagnetoencephalographyElectroencephalographySet (abstract data type)Speech recognitionChannel (broadcasting)Digital signal processingTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Independent component analysis (ICA) is a technique which extracts statistically independent components from a set of measured signals. The technique enjoys numerous applications in biomedical signal analysis in the literature, especially in the analysis of electromagnetic (EM) brain signals. Standard implementations of ICA are restrictive mainly due to the square mixing assumption-for signal recordings which have large numbers of channels, the large number of resulting extracted sources makes the subsequent analysis laborious and highly subjective. There are many instances in neurophysiological analysis where there is strong a priori information about the signals being sought; temporally constrained ICA (cICA) can extract signals that are statistically independent, yet which are constrained to be similar to some reference signal which can incorporate such a priori information. We demonstrate this method on a synthetic dataset and on a number of artifactual waveforms identified in multichannel recordings of EEG and MEG. cICA repeatedly converges to the desired component within a few iterations and subjective analysis shows the waveforms to be of the expected morphologies and with realistic spatial distributions. This paper shows that cICA can be applied with great success to EM brain signal analysis, with an initial application in automating artifact extraction in EEG and MEG.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
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

Citations257
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207