MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993013302 · doi:10.1109/biocas.2019.8919113

Development and Validation of a Current-BasedEEG System

2019· article· en· W2993013302 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Comadurán Márquez, Sarah Anderson, Kent G. Hecker, Kartikeya Murari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyMagnetoencephalographyComputer scienceNeuroscienceInterface (matter)Brain–computer interfaceEpilepsyNeurophysiologyFocus (optics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligencePsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electroencephalography (EEG) measures electrical brain activity in a noninvasive manner. EEG mainly records electrical activity from radially oriented pyramidal cells in the cerebral cortex. However, EEG is less influenced by the tangentially oriented pyramidal cells. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is influenced by the tangentially oriented pyramidal cells. However, MEG is not as widely available as EEG. Recent studies show that the combined used of EEG and MEG can improve the accuracy of source reconstruction, especially in neurological disorders (e.g. epilepsy). A current-based EEG system could allow us to record from the tangentially oriented pyramidal cells. The current work presents the development and validation of such a current-based EEG system. The system is adapted from a previously developed current-based electromyography (EMG) system. Characterization data and pilot EEG recordings in a human subject are presented. Further work will focus on miniaturizing the system to interface with the standard EEG cap, as well as developing a multichannel system.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.280
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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