MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241067023 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100008532

Guidelines for Visual-Sensitive EEG Testing

2008· article· fr· W4241067023 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandardizationReliability (semiconductor)MedicineElectroencephalographyAudiologyVisual inspectionComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adrian & Matthews were likely the first to demonstrate the photic driving response in man. 1 Intermittent photic stimulation (IPS) became an integral part of the electroencephalogram (EEG) after the seminal contributions of Walter et al 2 and Gastaut et al. 3 Because of the considerable variability in the equipment and methods used for IPS, experts in Europe developed a consensus for standardizing techniques. [4][5]5][6] However, The American EEG Society, 7 the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 8 the Canadian Society for Clinical Neurophysiologists (CSCN) 9 and The American Clinical Neurophysiology Society 10 have only made passing reference to IPS.The European recommendations for IPS 4-6 provide an excellent framework for adoption.The method is demonstrated with video in Zifkin and Kasteleijn-Nolste Trenité. 11With a few minor additions, the guidelines for IPS in this document are identical.In addition, pattern-sensitivity and video games have also been addressed.In this paper, testing for visualsensitivity encompasses IPS, testing for pattern -sensitivity and assessment for video game induced seizures. INTERMITTENT PHOTIC STIMULATION (IPS) Photic StimulatorThe Grass (model PS22) is the gold standard because it has been used in several studies and meets the desired standards, 4-6 although other manufacturers supply similar devices.The European group recommended the following specifications for photic stimulators: 4-6 (i) Maximal intensity ≥ 100 Nit-s per flash, (ii) circular field of diameter 13 cms, (iii) Xenon discharge lamp, (iv) granular diffuser and lamp housing/reflector resulting in a spatial distribution of luminous intensity similar to that of the Grass photic stimulator, (v) No pattern or grid on the stimulator but provision for inserting patterns in front of the diffuser as required and (vi) should deliver single flashes and trains of flashes of constant intensity at frequencies between 1 and 60Hz, (vii) Intensity of 1 joule per flash and luminance of 100 nit-s per flash.As (the flash) stimulator ages, the intensity may change.The granular diffuser reduces the differences related to different flash tubes and stimulator surfaces.Digital EEG systems now usually come with LED-based stimulators.Although LED-based stimulators may not exhibit aging effect, we are uncertain if these stimulators meet the criteria that have been set.Thus, the Schwartzer lamp is a line of several LEDs in a rectangular housing.The spatial distribution of the flashes may not be the same as with a

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.018

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207