MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2995734841 · doi:10.1109/cwit.2019.8929905

Automated EEG Source Error Thresholding (AESET) in L<sub>2</sub>-Regularization Inverse Problems

2019· article· en· W2995734841 on OpenAlexaff
Younes Sadat-Nejad, Soosan Beheshti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThresholdingRegularization (linguistics)Computer scienceInverseArtificial intelligenceImage resolutionInverse problemMean squared errorPattern recognition (psychology)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)AlgorithmMathematicsImage (mathematics)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain source localization techniques aim to provide high spatial resolution for EEG data which are known to have a high temporal resolution. Yet, this task is very challenging and limited due to the influence of volume conduction effect. Most popular inverse solutions which provide a reasonable estimate for the location of the source while being simple and computationally fast, such as the L2-Regularization based category of solutions, tends to provide low resolution and blurred estimated. Here we present a probabilistic approach for automating the thresholding of the L2-based inverse solutions that will result in a more reliable solution. The approach utilizes Minimum Noiseless Description Length (MNDL) thresholding. Addition of this method to the result of the inverse solutions confines the need for manual thresholding. The method`s performance is evaluated in a series of synthetic simulations with the change in parameters such as Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and the number of source patches. Mean Square Error (MSE) and Percentage of Undetermined Source (PUS) are used to evaluate the performance of the thresholding method, and the results illustrate the advantage of this automatic thresholding over the manual thresholding.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces→French-language works237,207→