User-customized brain computer interfaces using Bayesian optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The brain characteristics of different people are not the same. Brain computer interfaces (BCIs) should thus be customized for each individual person. In motor-imagery based synchronous BCIs, a number of parameters (referred to as hyper-parameters) including the EEG frequency bands, the channels and the time intervals from which the features are extracted should be pre-determined based on each subject's brain characteristics. APPROACH: To determine the hyper-parameter values, previous work has relied on manual or semi-automatic methods that are not applicable to high-dimensional search spaces. In this paper, we propose a fully automatic, scalable and computationally inexpensive algorithm that uses Bayesian optimization to tune these hyper-parameters. We then build different classifiers trained on the sets of hyper-parameter values proposed by the Bayesian optimization. A final classifier aggregates the results of the different classifiers. MAIN RESULTS: We have applied our method to 21 subjects from three BCI competition datasets. We have conducted rigorous statistical tests, and have shown the positive impact of hyper-parameter optimization in improving the accuracy of BCIs. Furthermore, We have compared our results to those reported in the literature. SIGNIFICANCE: Unlike the best reported results in the literature, which are based on more sophisticated feature extraction and classification methods, and rely on prestudies to determine the hyper-parameter values, our method has the advantage of being fully automated, uses less sophisticated feature extraction and classification methods, and yields similar or superior results compared to the best performing designs in the literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".