MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210380131 · doi:10.1155/2022/5308885

The Recognition of Action Idea EEG with Deep Learning

2022· article· en· W4210380131 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComplexity · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersDepartment of Education of Guangdong Province
KeywordsAction (physics)ElectroencephalographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAction recognitionBrain wavesState (computer science)Pattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyNeuroscienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recognition in electroencephalogram (EEG) of action idea is to identify what action people want to do by EEG. The significance of this project is to help people who have trouble in movement. Their action ideas are identified by EEG, and then robot hands can assist them to complete the action. This paper, with comparative experiments, used OpenBCI to collect EEG action ideas during static action and dynamic action and used the EEG recognition model Conv1D‐GRU to training and recognition action, respectively. The experimental result shows that the brain wave action idea is easier to recognize in static state. The accuracy of brain wave action idea recognition in dynamic state is only 72.27%, and the accuracy of brain wave action idea recognition in static state is 99.98%. The experimental result confirms that the action idea will be of great help to people with mobility difficulties.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.178 · 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