Pseudo-online detection and classification for upper-limb movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective . This study analyzed detection (movement vs. non-movement) and classification (different types of movements) to decode upper-limb movement volitions in a pseudo-online fashion. Approach . Nine healthy subjects executed four self-initiated movements: left wrist extension, right wrist extension, left index finger extension, and right index finger extension. For detection, we investigated the performance of three individual classifiers (support vector machine (SVM), EEGNET, and Riemannian geometry featured SVM) on three frequency bands (0.05–5 Hz, 5–40 Hz, 0.05–40 Hz). The best frequency band and the best classifier combinations were constructed to realize an ensemble processing pipeline using majority voting. For classification, we used adaptive boosted Riemannian geometry model to differentiate contra-lateral and ipsilateral movements. Main results . The ensemble model achieved 79.6 ± 8.8% true positive rate and 3.1 ± 1.2 false positives per minute with 75.3 ± 112.6 ms latency on a pseudo-online detection task. The following classification gave around 67% accuracy to differentiate contralateral movements. Significance . The newly proposed ensemble method and pseudo-online testing procedure could provide a robust brain-computer interface design for movement decoding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".