Multi-Sessions Outcome for EEG Feature Extraction and Classification Methods in a Motor Imagery Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to evaluate the performances of some features extraction methods and classification algorithms for the electroencephalographic (EEG) signals recorded in a motor task imagery paradigm. The sessions were performed by the same subject in eight consecutive years. Modeling the EEG signal as an autoregressive process (by means of Itakura distance and symmetric Itakura distance), amplitude modulation (using the amplitude modulation energy index) and phase synchronization (measuring phase locking value, phase lag index and weighted phase lag index) are the methods used for getting the appropriate information. The extracted features are classified using linear discriminant analysis, quadratic discriminant analysis, Mahalanobis distance, support vector machine and k nearest neighbor classifiers. The highest classifications rates are achieved when Itakura distance with Mahalanobis distance based classifier are applied. The outcomes of this research may improve the design of assistive devices for restoration of movement and communication strength for physically disabled patients in order to rehabilitate their lost motor abilities and to improve the quality of their daily life.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".