MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000563309 · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ab6a67

Comparing user-dependent and user-independent training of CNN for SSVEP BCI

2020· article· en· W3000563309 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCanonical correlationComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkBrain–computer interfaceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)CorrelationSpeech recognitionElectroencephalographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We presented a comparative study on the training methodologies of a convolutional neural network (CNN) for the detection of steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEP). Two training scenarios were also compared: user-independent (UI) training and user-dependent (UD) training. APPROACH: The CNN was trained in both UD and UI scenarios on two types of features for SSVEP classification: magnitude spectrum features (M-CNN) and complex spectrum features (C-CNN). The canonical correlation analysis (CCA), widely used in SSVEP processing, was used as the baseline. Additional comparisons were performed with task-related components analysis (TRCA) and filter-bank canonical correlation analysis (FBCCA). The performance of the proposed CNN pipelines, CCA, FBCCA and TRCA were evaluated with two datasets: a seven-class SSVEP dataset collected on 21 healthy participants and a twelve-class publicly available SSVEP dataset collected on ten healthy participants. MAIN RESULTS: The UD based training methods consistently outperformed the UI methods when all other conditions were the same, as one would expect. However, the proposed UI-C-CNN approach performed similarly to the UD-M-CNN across all cases investigated on both datasets. On Dataset 1, the average accuracies of the different methods for 1 s window length were: CCA: 69.1% ± 10.8%, TRCA: 13.4% ± 1.5%, FBCCA: 64.8% ± 15.6%, UI-M-CNN: 73.5% ± 16.1%, UI-C-CNN: 81.6% ± 12.3%, UD-M-CNN: 87.8% ± 7.6% and UD-C-CNN: 92.5% ± 5%. On Dataset 2, the average accuracies of the different methods for data length of 1 s were: UD-C-CNN: 92.33% ± 11.1%, UD-M-CNN: 82.77% ± 16.7%, UI-C-CNN: 81.6% ± 18%, UI-M-CNN: 70.5% ± 22%, FBCCA: 67.1% ± 21%, CCA: 62.7% ± 21.5%, TRCA: 40.4% ± 14%. Using t-SNE, visualizing the features extracted by the CNN pipelines further revealed that the C-CNN method likely learned both the amplitude and phase related information from the SSVEP data for classification, resulting in superior performance than the M-CNN methods. The results suggested that UI-C-CNN method proposed in this study offers a good balance between performance and cost of training data. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed C-CNN based method is a suitable candidate for SSVEP-based BCIs and provides an improved performance in both UD and UI training scenarios.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.188 · 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