MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464397079 · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/13/2/026001

User-customized brain computer interfaces using Bayesian optimization

2016· article· en· W2464397079 on OpenAlex
Hossein Bashashati, Rabab Ward, Ali Bashashati

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

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
FundersQatar National Research Fund
KeywordsComputer scienceBayesian optimizationBayesian probabilityHuman–computer interactionBrain–computer interfaceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningElectroencephalographyNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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