MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230382911 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.4397653

Assessment of Preprocessing on Classifiers Used in the P300 Speller Paradigm

2006· article· en· W4230382911 on OpenAlexaff
Hamed Mirghasemi, Mohammad Bagher Shamsollahi, Reza Fazel-Rezai

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprocessorComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionElectroencephalographyData pre-processingBrain–computer interfaceSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artifact removal is an essential part in electroencephalogram (EEG) recording and the raw EEG signals require preprocessing before feature extraction. In this work, we implemented three filtering methods and demonstrated their effects on the performance of different classifiers. Bandpass digital filtering, median filtering and facet method are three preprocessing approaches investigated in this paper. We used data set lib from the BCI competition 2003 for training and testing phase. Our accuracy varied between 80% and 96%. In our work, we demonstrated that the problems of choosing the classifier and preprocessing methods are not independent of each other. Two of our approaches could achieve the 96% accuracy i.e. 31 of 32 characters were predicted correctly. These two approaches have different classifier and different preprocessing method. It means that the performance of each classifier can be enhanced with a specific preprocessing method. In our approach, we used only three electrodes of 64 applied electrodes. Therefore it can noticeably reduce the time and cost of EEG measurement

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference proceedingsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207