MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214879618 · doi:10.3390/s22051932

Analyzing Classification Performance of fNIRS-BCI for Gait Rehabilitation Using Deep Neural Networks

2022· article· en· W4214879618 on OpenAlexaff
Huma Hamid, Noman Naseer, Hammad Nazeer, Muhammad Jawad Khan, Rayyan Azam Khan, Umar Shahbaz Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceSupport vector machineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceLinear discriminant analysisConvolutional neural networkFunctional near-infrared spectroscopyGaitExoskeletonPattern recognition (psychology)Motor imageryArtificial neural networkPrimary motor cortexMachine learningElectroencephalographyMotor cortexPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPrefrontal cortexCognitionSimulationPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research presents a brain-computer interface (BCI) framework for brain signal classification using deep learning (DL) and machine learning (ML) approaches on functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) signals. fNIRS signals of motor execution for walking and rest tasks are acquired from the primary motor cortex in the brain's left hemisphere for nine subjects. DL algorithms, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs), long short-term memory (LSTM), and bidirectional LSTM (Bi-LSTM) are used to achieve average classification accuracies of 88.50%, 84.24%, and 85.13%, respectively. For comparison purposes, three conventional ML algorithms, support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) are also used for classification, resulting in average classification accuracies of 73.91%, 74.24%, and 65.85%, respectively. This study successfully demonstrates that the enhanced performance of fNIRS-BCI can be achieved in terms of classification accuracy using DL approaches compared to conventional ML approaches. Furthermore, the control commands generated by these classifiers can be used to initiate and stop the gait cycle of the lower limb exoskeleton for gait rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations62
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207