MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169823255 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2006.1661421

Detection of Hand Extension Movements in the Context of a 3-State Asynchronous Brain Interface

2006· article· en· W2169823255 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Bashashati, Rabab Ward, Gary E. Birch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationComputer scienceBrain–computer interfaceContext (archaeology)Movement (music)State (computer science)ElectroencephalographyInterface (matter)Range (aeronautics)Speech recognitionArtificial intelligenceNeurosciencePsychologyAlgorithmComputer networkEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The low-frequency asynchronous switch design (LF-ASD) is a direct brain interface (BI) that detects the presence of a specific finger movement in the ongoing EEG. Asynchronous interfaces have the advantage of being operational at all times and not only at specific system-defined periods. In this paper, we present the design of a 3-state asynchronous BI for the detection of two different movements from the ongoing EEG. The proposed 3-state asynchronous BI detects right and left hand extensions. Using data collected from two able-bodied individuals, it is shown that the error characteristics of the new system in detecting the presence of movement are significantly better than the 2-state LF-ASD, with true positive rate increases of up to 22.4% for false positive rates in the 1-2% range. An average performance of 61.5% was achieved in differentiating between left and right hand movements

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207