MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168094319 · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2004.827220

Continuous EEG classification during motor imagery-simulation of an asynchronous BCI

2004· article· en· W2168094319 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsAlgoma University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceMotor imageryElectroencephalographyAsynchronous communicationComputer scienceInterface (matter)Task (project management)Speech recognitionArtificial intelligencePsychologyNeuroscienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nearly all electroencephalogram (EEG)-based brain-computer interface (BCI) systems operate in a cue-paced or synchronous mode. This means that the onset of mental activity (thought) is externally-paced and the EEG has to be analyzed in predefined time windows. In the near future, BCI systems that allow the user to intend a specific mental pattern whenever she/he wishes to produce such patterns will also become important. An asynchronous BCI is characterized by continuous analyzing and classification of EEG data. Therefore, it is important to maximize the hits (true positive rate) during an intended mental task and to minimize the false positive detections in the resting or idling state. EEG data recorded during right/left motor imagery is used to simulate an asynchronous BCI. To optimize the classification results, a refractory period and a dwell time are introduced.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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