MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145947508 · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/4/2/r03

A survey of signal processing algorithms in brain–computer interfaces based on electrical brain signals

2007· review· en· W2145947508 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Bashashati, Mehrdad Fatourechi, Rabab Ward, Gary E. Birch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsNeil Squire SocietyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceComputer scienceSignal processingSIGNAL (programming language)ElectroencephalographyKey (lock)Process (computing)Human–computer interactionDigital signal processingNeuroscienceComputer hardwarePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) aim at providing a non-muscular channel for sending commands to the external world using the electroencephalographic activity or other electrophysiological measures of the brain function. An essential factor in the successful operation of BCI systems is the methods used to process the brain signals. In the BCI literature, however, there is no comprehensive review of the signal processing techniques used. This work presents the first such comprehensive survey of all BCI designs using electrical signal recordings published prior to January 2006. Detailed results from this survey are presented and discussed. The following key research questions are addressed: (1) what are the key signal processing components of a BCI, (2) what signal processing algorithms have been used in BCIs and (3) which signal processing techniques have received more attention?

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations898
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neural EngineeringSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207