Machine learning for MEG during speech tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider whether a deep neural network trained with raw MEG data can be used to predict the age of children performing a verb-generation task, a monosyllable speech-elicitation task, and a multi-syllabic speech-elicitation task. Furthermore, we argue that the network makes predictions on the grounds of differences in speech development. Previous work has explored taking 'deep' neural networks (DNNs) designed for, or trained with, images to classify encephalographic recordings with some success, but this does little to acknowledge the structure of these data. Simple neural networks have been used extensively to classify data expressed as features, but require extensive feature engineering and pre-processing. We present novel DNNs trained using raw magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) recordings that mimic the feature-engineering pipeline. We highlight criteria the networks use, including relative weighting of channels and preferred spectro-temporal characteristics of re-weighted channels. Our data feature 92 subjects aged 4-18, recorded using a 151-channel MEG system. Our proposed model scores over 95% mean cross-validation accuracy distinguishing above and below 10 years of age in single trials of un-seen subjects, and can classify publicly available EEG with state-of-the-art 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".