MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560765612 · doi:10.1115/detc2016-59104

Identification of Relationships Between Electroencephalography (EEG) Bands and Design Activities

2016· article· en· W2560765612 on OpenAlexaff
Lixin Liu, Thanh An Nguyen, Yong Zeng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyPrincipal component analysisCognitionAlpha (finance)Computer scienceAudiologyIdentification (biology)PsychologyPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electroencephalography (EEG) study of design activities has been drawing increasing attentions in design cognition research. The aim of this present paper is to identify EEG bands that are associated with design activities through principal component analysis (PCA). Based on the analysis of the data on 32 subjects collected from experiments conducted in the Design Lab at Concordia University, it was found that resting, problem solving and evaluation activities have relations to specific EEG bands. EEG powers of beta-2 (20–30Hz), gamma-1 (20–30Hz), and gamma-2 (30–40Hz) are mostly associated to the design activities whereas resting is mostly associated to alpha band (8–14Hz). In addition, there are differences in frequency above 20Hz between the resting before and after design activities. The work presented in this paper can be used to further quantify designer’s cognitive activities, which will ultimately improve the development of effective design tools and methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207