Efficient feature for classification of eye movements using electrooculography signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrooculography (EOG) signal is widely and successfully used to detect activities of human eye. The advantages of the EOG-based interface over other conventional interfaces have been presented in the last two decades; however, due to a lot of information in EOG signals, the extraction of useful features should be done before the classification task. In this study, an efficient feature extracted from two directional EOG signals: vertical and horizontal signals has been presented and evaluated. There are the maximum peak and valley amplitude values, the maximum peak and valley position values, and slope, which are derived from both vertical and horizontal signals. In the experiments, EOG signals obtained from five healthy subjects with ten directional eye movements were employed: up, down, right, left, up-right, up-left, down-right down-left clockwise and counterclockwise. The mean feature values and their standard deviations have been reported. The difference between the mean values of the proposed feature from different eye movements can be clearly seen. Using the scatter plot, the differences in features can be also clearly observed. Results show that classification accuracy can approach 100% with a simple distinction feature rule. The proposed features can be useful for various advanced human-computer interface applications in future researches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".