MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946458051 · doi:10.1109/ner.2019.8716912

User-Specific Channel Selection Method to Improve SSVEP BCI Decoding Robustness Against Variable Inter-Stimulus Distance

2019· article· en· W2946458051 on OpenAlexaff
Aravind Ravi, Sarah Pearce, Xin Zhang, Ning Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Computer scienceDecoding methodsBrain–computer interfaceRobustness (evolution)Speech recognitionArtificial intelligenceChannel (broadcasting)ElectroencephalographyPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEP) are responses elicited when a user is presented with a repetitive visual stimulus. Change in stimuli proximity has been shown to have an influence on the performance of SSVEP-based BCI, where the inter-stimulus distance has a positive correlation with the overall performance. This limits the flexibility in stimulus design by imposing a constraint on the acceptable inter-stimulus distance, consequently limiting the range of applicability for SSVEP-based BCIs in real-world applications. Another limitation that needs to be addressed is the required number of EEG channels. In this study, we investigated these two challenges. A process of selecting optimal user-specific channel set was proposed. We demonstrated that the user-specific channel set is more robust against variable inter-stimulus distance. A significant improvement in accuracy (p=10-3) of 5% and a reduction in variation (p=10-3) of 55% was achieved on average when compared to the performance using the classic 3-channel set (O1, O2, Oz) and 6-channel set (O1, O2, Oz, PO3, PO4, POz).

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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