Artifact Removal in tACS-EEG Recordings: A Combined Methodology Based on the Empirical Wavelet Transform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that modulates brain activity, which yields promise for achieving desired behavioral outcomes in different contexts. Combining tACS with electroencephalography (EEG) allows for the monitoring of the real-time effects of stimulation. However, the EEG signal recorded with simultaneous tACS is largely contaminated by stimulation-induced artifacts. In this work, we examine the combination of the empirical wavelet transform (EWT) with three blind source separation (BSS) methods: principal component analysis (PCA), multiset canonical correlation analysis (MCCA) and independent vector analysis (IVA), aiming to remove artifacts in tACS-contaminated EEG recordings. Using simulated data, we show that EWT followed by IVA achieves the best performance. Using experimental data, we show that BSS combined with EWT performs better compared to standard BSS methodology in terms of preserving useful information while eliminating artifacts.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".