MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965316760 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-47450-8

Classification of naturally evoked compound action potentials in peripheral nerve spatiotemporal recordings

2019· article· en· W2965316760 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan G. L. Koh, Adrian Nachman, José Zariffa

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversity of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Sensory systemSciatic nervePeripheralComputer scienceNeuroscienceSural nerveBiomedical engineeringArtificial intelligenceMedicineAnatomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Peripheral neural signals have the potential to provide the necessary motor, sensory or autonomic information for robust control in many neuroprosthetic and neuromodulation applications. However, developing methods to recover information encoded in these signals is a significant challenge. We introduce the idea of using spatiotemporal signatures extracted from multi-contact nerve cuff electrode recordings to classify naturally evoked compound action potentials (CAP). 9 Long-Evan rats were implanted with a 56-channel nerve cuff on the sciatic nerve. Afferent activity was selectively evoked in the different fascicles of the sciatic nerve (tibial, peroneal, sural) using mechano-sensory stimuli. Spatiotemporal signatures of recorded CAPs were used to train three different classifiers. Performance was measured based on the classification accuracy, F 1 -score, and the ability to reconstruct original firing rates of neural pathways. The mean classification accuracies, for a 3-class problem, for the best performing classifier was 0.686 ± 0.126 and corresponding mean F 1 -score was 0.605 ± 0.212. The mean Pearson correlation coefficients between the original firing rates and estimated firing rates found for the best classifier was 0.728 ± 0.276. The proposed method demonstrates the possibility of classifying individual naturally evoked CAPs in peripheral neural signals recorded from extraneural electrodes, allowing for more precise control signals in neuroprosthetic applications.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207