MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262157003 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2015.2506982

Removing Muscle Artifacts From EEG Data: Multichannel or Single-Channel Techniques?

2015· article· en· W2262157003 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 Sensors Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersQatar National Research Fund
KeywordsElectroencephalographyArtifact (error)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceChannel (broadcasting)Pattern recognition (psychology)Noise (video)Speech recognitionSignal processingNoise reductionBlind signal separationSIGNAL (programming language)NeuroscienceDigital signal processingPsychologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings are often contaminated with muscle artifacts. Muscular activities strongly obscure EEG signals and complicate subsequent EEG-based data analysis. Conventional methods for removing muscle artifact from EEG are usually based on blind source separation techniques and involve jointly analyzing multichannel EEG recordings. Instead of using the multichannel approaches, this paper proposes to explore single-channel techniques for muscle artifact removal from multichannel EEG. It may seem paradoxical that we denoise each channel individually while ignoring interchannel relationships. We conduct a performance comparison study, through numerical simulations and applications to real EEG recordings contaminated with muscle artifacts. The results demonstrate the advantage of single-channel techniques over multichannel ones, especially for low signal-to-noise ratios. This paper may change the traditional understanding of denoising the EEG signals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.129 · 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