CLASSIFYING EEG RECORDINGS OF RHYTHM PERCEPTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) recordings of rhythm percep-tion might contain enough information to distinguish different rhythm types/genres or even identify the rhythms themselves. In this paper, we present first classification results using deep learning techniques on EEG data recorded within a rhythm perception study in Kigali, Rwanda. We tested 13 adults, mean age 21, who performed three behavioral tasks using rhythmic tone sequences derived from either East African or Western music. For the EEG testing, 24 rhythms – half East African and half Western with identical tempo and based on a 2-bar 12/8 scheme – were each repeated for 32 sec-onds. During presentation, the participants ’ brain waves were recorded via 14 EEG channels. We applied stacked denois-ing autoencoders and convolutional neural networks on the collected data to distinguish African and Western rhythms on a group and individual participant level. Furthermore, we in-vestigated how far these techniques can be used to recognize the individual rhythms. 1.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".