MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534139428 · doi:10.1109/embc.2016.7590863

Automatic and continuous assessment of ERPs for mismatch negativity detection

2016· article· en· W2534139428 on OpenAlexaff
Narges Armanfard, Majid Komeili, J.P. Reilly, Richard Mah, John F. Connolly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMismatch negativityComputer scienceStimulus (psychology)ElectroencephalographyEvent-related potentialSpeech recognitionNeurophysiologySensory memoryEvoked potentialNegativity effectArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate and fast detection of event related potential (ERP) components is an unresolved issue in neuroscience and critical health care. Mismatch negativity (MMN) is a component of the ERP to an odd stimulus in a sequence of identical stimuli which has good correlation with coma awakening. All of the previous studies for MMN detection are based on visual inspection of the averaged ERPs (over a long recording time) by a skilled neurophysiologist. However, in practical situations, such an expert may not be available or familiar with all aspects of evoked potential methods. Further, we may miss important clinically essential events due to the implicit averaging process used to acquire the ERPs. In this paper we propose a practical machine learning approach for automatic and continuous assessment of the ERPs for detecting the presence of the MMN component. The proposed method is realized in a classification framework. Performance of the proposed method is demonstrated on 22 healthy subjects through a leave-one subject-out strategy where the MMN components are identified with about 93% accuracy.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207