MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236615599 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.4398878

Application of Velocity Filters to Somatosensory Evoked Potential Measurements for Removal of Stimulus Artifact

2006· article· en· W4236615599 on OpenAlexaff
Nabil Yazdani, Adrian D. C. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtifact (error)Stimulus (psychology)AcousticsFilter (signal processing)Somatosensory systemLow-pass filterSpatial filterImage resolutionComputer sciencePhysicsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, velocity filtering is applied to somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) measurements to remove the stimulus artifact (SA). Using an array of electrodes, velocity information is used as a criterion for discerning the SEP from the SA. The SEP is known to propagate at speeds below 100 m/s due to nerve physiology, whereas the SA propagation mode is electromagnetic, and propagates near the speed of light. The velocity filtering method is presented, with spatial frequency resolution, physical array implementation, filter realization, and trace-to-trace consistency of the measurements identified as factors that influence overall performance. SEP data from the median nerve were recorded using an 11 channel array at the wrist, with stimulation at the index finger. These data are used to assess the velocity filtering method. The filter output is analyzed qualitatively showing a visual improvement in the SEP measurement when compared against the filter input. It is concluded that the SNR gain of the filter is promising, but distortion in the SEP estimate may occur due to spatial frequency resolution and trace-to-trace inconsistencies in the measurements

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 score0.140
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference proceedingsSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207