Enhancing Classification Performance of fNIRS-BCI by Identifying Cortically Active Channels Using the z-Score Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A state-of-the-art brain–computer interface (BCI) system includes brain signal acquisition, noise removal, channel selection, feature extraction, classification, and an application interface. In functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based BCI (fNIRS-BCI) channel selection may enhance classification performance by identifying suitable brain regions that contain brain activity. In this study, the z-score method for channel selection is proposed to improve fNIRS-BCI performance. The proposed method uses cross-correlation to match the similarity between desired and recorded brain activity signals, followed by forming a vector of each channel’s correlation coefficients’ maximum values. After that, the z-score is calculated for each value of that vector. A channel is selected based on a positive z-score value. The proposed method is applied to an open-access dataset containing mental arithmetic (MA) and motor imagery (MI) tasks for twenty-nine subjects. The proposed method is compared with the conventional t-value method and with no channel selected, i.e., using all channels. The z-score method yielded significantly improved (p < 0.0167) classification accuracies of 87.2 ± 7.0%, 88.4 ± 6.2%, and 88.1 ± 6.9% for left motor imagery (LMI) vs. rest, right motor imagery (RMI) vs. rest, and mental arithmetic (MA) vs. rest, respectively. The proposed method is also validated on an open-access database of 17 subjects, containing right-hand finger tapping (RFT), left-hand finger tapping (LFT), and dominant side foot tapping (FT) tasks.The study shows an enhanced performance of the z-score method over the t-value method as an advancement in efforts to improve state-of-the-art fNIRS-BCI systems’ performance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".