MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548189140 · doi:10.1109/isco.2016.7727065

A novel method for automatic ICi selection in EEG signals

2016· article· en· W2548189140 on OpenAlexaff
V. Akhila, C. Arunvinodh, V. A. Athira, K. A. Faby

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBrain–computer interfaceElectroencephalographySelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Field (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)SIGNAL (programming language)Independent component analysisSignal processingMachine learningSpeech recognitionMathematicsDigital signal processingPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancements in EEG signal processing yields tremendous research in the field of BCI. Online based BCI fails in selecting independent components from different brain regions. Unknown order of the independent components and the random weight matrix used in repeated ICA trainings may leads to a different ICA result. This paper highlights a new idea of automatic ICi selection by taking an average of particular brain regions which resolves the problem of online BCI. The proposed method has been tested in EEG datasets such as .SET, .SMA which succeeds in selecting reference ICi.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207