MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169619520 · doi:10.1109/ner49283.2021.9441376

Comparison of Classification Accuracies Between Different Brain Areas During a Two-Class Motor Imagery in a fNIRS Based BCI

2021· article· en· W3169619520 on OpenAlexaff
Amir H. Moslehi, T. Claire Davies

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceMotor imageryClass (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceNeuroimagingElectroencephalographyPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) data from 29 participants to determine whether the classification accuracy associated with a motor imagery task depended on different areas of the brain. The fNIRS was used to measure concentration changes of oxy- (HbO) and deoxyhemoglobin (HbR). The averages of HbO (mHbO) and HbR (mHbR) were used as features, and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and support vector machine (SVM) were used as classifiers. The results showed significantly higher classification accuracies for the motor cortex than both frontal and occipital areas, but less accuracy compared to all channels. Furthermore, while SVM resulted in higher accuracy than LDA, mHbO and mHbR led to similar accuracies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207