MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967165136 · doi:10.3390/e21080783

Multi-Scale Heart Beat Entropy Measures for Mental Workload Assessment of Ambulant Users

2019· article· en· W2967165136 on OpenAlexaff
Abhishek Tiwari, Isabela Albuquerque, Mark Parent, Jean‐François Gagnon, Daniel Lafond, Sébastien Tremblay, Tiago H. Falk

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalThales (Canada)Université du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadHeart rate variabilityComputer scienceHeart beatHeart rateMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental workload assessment is crucial in many real life applications which require constant attention and where imbalance of mental workload resources may cause safety hazards. As such, mental workload and its relationship with heart rate variability (HRV) have been well studied in the literature. However, the majority of the developed models have assumed individuals are not ambulant, thus bypassing the issue of movement-related electrocardiography (ECG) artifacts and changing heart beat dynamics due to physical activity. In this work, multi-scale features for mental workload assessment of ambulatory users is explored. ECG data was sampled from users while they performed different types and levels of physical activity while performing the multi-attribute test battery (MATB-II) task at varying difficulty levels. Proposed features are shown to outperform benchmark ones and further exhibit complementarity when used in combination. Indeed, results show gains over the benchmark HRV measures of 24.41 % in accuracy and of 27.97 % in F1 score can be achieved even at high 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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207