Cortical Tasks-Based Optimal Filter Selection: An fNIRS Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 p<0.05 . 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".