MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238827002 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.4398695

Detecting Controlled Signals in the Human Brain by Near Infrared Spectroscopy

2006· article· en· W4238827002 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Kohlenberg, Tom Chau

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional near-infrared spectroscopyNear-infrared spectroscopySIGNAL (programming language)SpectroscopyIntensity (physics)Anticipation (artificial intelligence)Human brainMotor cortexAmplitudeFrequency domainInfrared spectroscopyInfraredBrain–computer interfaceNuclear magnetic resonanceMaterials scienceElectroencephalographyOpticsNeuroscienceChemistryComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligencePsychologyPrefrontal cortex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present here results from a preliminary trial of brain activation data collection by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). Light in the NIR region was incident upon the human motor cortex in anticipation of observing a detectable change during periods of motor activation with respect to periods of rest. Frequency domain near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) was used to obtain the amplitude (AC) and intensity (DC) of the NIR signal after it passed through the brain tissue. Analysis of the DC component indicates that the absorptive properties of the tissue are altered during periods of activation. Spectral estimation reveals some frequency components in both amplitude and intensity signals that may serve to discriminate between the periods of activation and the periods of rest. These characteristic differences may be harnessed to control a brain computer interface (BCI)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.253 · 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