MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152597247 · doi:10.1177/1071181312561367

Measuring workload using a combination of electroencephalography and near infrared spectroscopy

2012· article· en· W2152597247 on OpenAlexaff
Emily B. J. Coffey, Anne-Marie Brouwer, Jan B. F. van Erp

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMinisterie van Economische Zaken
KeywordsElectroencephalographyWorkloadComputer scienceTask (project management)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionPsychologyNeuroscienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to continuously monitor workload in a real-world environment would have important implications for the offline design of human machine interfaces as well as the real-time improvement of interaction between humans and machines. We explored the usefulness of features derived from electroencephalography (EEG) spectra, near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) hemoglobin concentration, and their combination, under data acquisition and processing conditions that could be applied to real-time usage. We simultaneously recorded from eight EEG and three NIRS channels during different workload conditions of the N-back task (N = 0, 1, 2). EEG and NIRS data were classified independently, and in combination. EEG could be used to reliably classify workload condition for most subjects and NIRS for half of them. NIRS tended to contribute to classification accuracy when combined with EEG in some subjects. We discuss implications and future directions.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations41
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207