MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945457185 · doi:10.1109/ner.2019.8716977

Performance Comparison of Automated EEG Enhancement Algorithms for Mental Workload Assessment of Ambulant Users

2019· article· en· W2945457185 on OpenAlexafffund
Olivier Rosanne, Isabela Albuquerque, Jean‐François Gagnon, Sébastien Tremblay, Tiago H. Falk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalThales (Canada)Institut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWorkloadWearable computerComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)ElectroencephalographyBrain–computer interfaceArtifact (error)Feature extractionHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceSimulationReal-time computingEmbedded systemPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental workload (MW) assessment is important for numerous mentally-demanding applications, including first responders, air traffic control, amongst others, as it quantifies the cognitive capabilities of the operator. Recently, there has been a push for wearables based MW monitoring for real-time feedback and human performance augmentation. Most previous studies have focused on immobile subjects. Realistic applications, however, rely on ambulant users under varying types and levels of physical activity. Movement artifacts are known to hamper the quality of signals measured by wearable devices, thus the impact on MW assessment in situ is still unknown. In this study, we compare the performance of several automated artifact removal algorithms for electroencephalograms (EEG), as well as the robustness of two classical feature sets, for MW assessment under varying physical activity levels.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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)0.0130.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.395 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207