MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155617375 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2010.2082540

Regularized Common Spatial Pattern With Aggregation for EEG Classification in Small-Sample Setting

2010· article· en· W2155617375 on OpenAlexaff
Haiping Lu, How‐Lung Eng, Cuntai Guan, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis, A.N. Venetsanopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Regularization (linguistics)Computer scienceCovariance matrixCovarianceArtificial intelligenceContext (archaeology)Sample size determinationAlgorithmData miningMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Common spatial pattern (CSP) is a popular algorithm for classifying electroencephalogram (EEG) signals in the context of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). This paper presents a regularization and aggregation technique for CSP in a small-sample setting (SSS). Conventional CSP is based on a sample-based covariance-matrix estimation. Hence, its performance in EEG classification deteriorates if the number of training samples is small. To address this concern, a regularized CSP (R-CSP) algorithm is proposed, where the covariance-matrix estimation is regularized by two parameters to lower the estimation variance while reducing the estimation bias. To tackle the problem of regularization parameter determination, R-CSP with aggregation (R-CSP-A) is further proposed, where a number of R-CSPs are aggregated to give an ensemble-based solution. The proposed algorithm is evaluated on data set IVa of BCI Competition III against four other competing algorithms. Experiments show that R-CSP-A significantly outperforms the other methods in average classification performance in three sets of experiments across various testing scenarios, with particular superiority in SSS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations309
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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