MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028134170 · doi:10.1155/2020/9152369

Cortical Tasks-Based Optimal Filter Selection: An fNIRS Study

2020· article· en· W3028134170 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Healthcare Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersPusan National University
KeywordsFinger tappingVentrolateral prefrontal cortexBrain–computer interfaceSupport vector machineArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Functional near-infrared spectroscopyComputer scienceFilter (signal processing)Prefrontal cortexPsychologyElectroencephalographyComputer visionCognitionNeuroscienceAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is one of the latest noninvasive brain function measuring technique that has been used for the purpose of brain-computer interfacing (BCI). In this paper, we compare and analyze the effect of six most commonly used filtering techniques (i.e., Gaussian, Butterworth, Kalman, hemodynamic response filter (hrf), Wiener, and finite impulse response) on classification accuracies of fNIRS-BCI. To conclude with the best optimal filter for a specific cortical task owing to a specific cortical region, we divided our experimental tasks according to the three main cortical regions: prefrontal, motor, and visual cortex. Three different experiments were performed for prefrontal and motor execution tasks while one for visual stimuli. The tasks performed for prefrontal include rest (R) vs mental arithmetic (MA), R vs object rotation (OB), and OB vs MA. Similarly, for motor execution, R vs left finger tapping (LFT), R vs right finger tapping (RFT), and LFT vs RFT. Likewise, for the visual cortex, R vs visual stimuli (VS) task. These experiments were performed for ten trials with five subjects. For consistency among extracted data, six statistical features were evaluated using oxygenated hemoglobin, namely, slope, mean, peak, kurtosis, skewness, and variance. Combination of these six features was used to classify data by the nonlinear support vector machine (SVM). The classification accuracies obtained from SVM by using hrf and Gaussian were significantly higher for R vs MA, R vs OB, R vs RFT, and R vs VS and Wiener filter for OB vs MA. Similarly, for R vs LFT and LFT vs RFT, hrf was found to be significant <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")" separators="|"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:math>. These results show the feasibility of using hrf for effective removal of noises from fNIRS data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.265 · 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