Human recognition using transient auditory evoked potentials: a preliminary study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a new technique for human recognition using transient auditory evoked potentials (AEPs). AEPs are electrical potentials that are triggered by stimulating ears with auditory stimulus reflecting the neural response from the cochlea to the auditory cortex. These signals feature some advantages over conventional biometric traits as they cannot be easily forged or stolen like fingerprints or faces. Moreover, these signals are cancellable and can be changed by modifying the auditory stimulus. This allows system reuse even if the registered signal was breached. To investigate the biometric potential of this signal, a database of ten subjects was collected where transient AEPs signals were recorded by stimulating the left and the right ears separately. Machine learning techniques were employed to extract unique features for each subject using 1D convolutional neural network. The proposed system was evaluated over single‐session and two‐session recordings. Moreover, a fusion of left and right ear stimulated AEP signals was adopted for performance improvement. Using single‐session and two‐session recordings, the proposed system achieved a correct recognition rate over 95% and an equal error rate below 7%. The achieved results show that AEPs carry subject discriminative features allowing the possibility of employing AEP signal as a biometric trait.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it