A practical guide to applying machine learning to infant EEG data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) has been widely adopted by the developmental cognitive neuroscience community, but the application of machine learning (ML) in this domain lags behind adult EEG studies. Applying ML to infant data is particularly challenging due to the low number of trials, low signal-to-noise ratio, high inter-subject variability, and high inter-trial variability. Here, we provide a step-by-step tutorial on how to apply ML to classify cognitive states in infants. We describe the type of brain attributes that are widely used for EEG classification and also introduce a Riemannian geometry based approach for deriving connectivity estimates that account for inter-trial and inter-subject variability. We present pipelines for learning classifiers using trials from a single infant and from multiple infants, and demonstrate the application of these pipelines on a standard infant EEG dataset of forty 12-month-old infants collected under an auditory oddball paradigm. While we classify perceptual states induced by frequent versus rare stimuli, the presented pipelines can be easily adapted for other experimental designs and stimuli using the associated code that we have made publicly available.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.075 |
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".