Robust learning from corrupted EEG with dynamic spatial filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building machine learning models using EEG recorded outside of the laboratory setting requires methods robust to noisy data and randomly missing channels. This need is particularly great when working with sparse EEG montages (1-6 channels), often encountered in consumer-grade or mobile EEG devices. Neither classical machine learning models nor deep neural networks trained end-to-end on EEG are typically designed or tested for robustness to corruption, and especially to randomly missing channels. While some studies have proposed strategies for using data with missing channels, these approaches are not practical when sparse montages are used and computing power is limited (e.g., wearables, cell phones). To tackle this problem, we propose dynamic spatial filtering (DSF), a multi-head attention module that can be plugged in before the first layer of a neural network to handle missing EEG channels by learning to focus on good channels and to ignore bad ones. We tested DSF on public EEG data encompassing ∼4000 recordings with simulated channel corruption and on a private dataset of ∼100 at-home recordings of mobile EEG with natural corruption. Our proposed approach achieves the same performance as baseline models when no noise is applied, but outperforms baselines by as much as 29.4% accuracy when significant channel corruption is present. Moreover, DSF outputs are interpretable, making it possible to monitor the effective channel importance in real-time. This approach has the potential to enable the analysis of EEG in challenging settings where channel corruption hampers the reading of brain signals.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".