MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914932879 · doi:10.1109/icdsp.2018.8631551

Low Power FIR Filter Bank for EEG Processing Using Frequency-Response Masking Technique

2018· article· en· W2914932879 on OpenAlexaff
Zhongxia Shang, Yang Zhao, Yong Lian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFilter bankFinite impulse responseComputer scienceFilter designFilter (signal processing)Root-raised-cosine filterInfinite impulse responseDigital filterLinear phaseLow-pass filterAdaptive filterRaised-cosine filterPrototype filterHigh-pass filterSignal processingMasking (illustration)Electronic engineeringDigital signal processingAlgorithmEngineeringComputer hardwareComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different frequency bands in an electroencephalogram (EEG) signal contain different information. It is very helpful to divide an EEG signal by its sub-bands before applying further classification. FIR filter is one of the best choices for processing EEG signal because of its linear phase property. However, the implementation of an FIR filter requires more multipliers compared to its IIR counterpart. With frequency-response masking (FRM) technique, the multipliers needed to implement FIR filter can be reduced dramatically leading to a low power design. This paper proposes a filter bank structure for processing EEG signal based on the FRM technique. The design equations for all the sub-filters are derived and the condition for applying the proposed structure is given. A design example is included to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed filter. It shows that the filter can fulfill the design objectives with 77% less multipliers comparing to the conventional FIR filter synthesizing technique.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207