MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617796164 · doi:10.1152/jn.00149.2017

Neurophysiology and neural engineering: a review

2017· review· en· W2617796164 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Procházka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsNeural engineeringInterfacingNeurophysiologyComputer scienceNeuroscienceNeural ProsthesisArtificial neural networkNeural tissue engineeringBrain–computer interfaceCognitive scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurophysiology is the branch of physiology concerned with understanding the function of neural systems. Neural engineering (also known as neuroengineering) is a discipline within biomedical engineering that uses engineering techniques to understand, repair, replace, enhance, or otherwise exploit the properties and functions of neural systems. In most cases neural engineering involves the development of an interface between electronic devices and living neural tissue. This review describes the origins of neural engineering, the explosive development of methods and devices commencing in the late 1950s, and the present-day devices that have resulted. The barriers to interfacing electronic devices with living neural tissues are many and varied, and consequently there have been numerous stops and starts along the way. Representative examples are discussed. None of this could have happened without a basic understanding of the relevant neurophysiology. I also consider examples of how neural engineering is repaying the debt to basic neurophysiology with new knowledge and insight.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207