MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282836069 · doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01398-z

Optimising the classification of feature-based attention in frequency-tagged electroencephalography data

2022· article· en· W4282836069 on OpenAlexafffund
Angela Renton, David R. Painter, Jason B. Mattingley

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersCentre of Excellence for Integrative Brain Function, Australian Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilDepartment of Education and TrainingNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsElectroencephalographyFeature (linguistics)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligencePsychologyNeuroscienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are a rapidly expanding field of study and require accurate and reliable real-time decoding of patterns of neural activity. These protocols often exploit selective attention, a neural mechanism that prioritises the sensory processing of task-relevant stimulus features (feature-based attention) or task-relevant spatial locations (spatial attention). Within the visual modality, attentional modulation of neural responses to different inputs is well indexed by steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs). These signals are reliably present in single-trial electroencephalography (EEG) data, are largely resilient to common EEG artifacts, and allow separation of neural responses to numerous concurrently presented visual stimuli. To date, efforts to use single-trial SSVEPs to classify visual attention for BCI control have largely focused on spatial attention rather than feature-based attention. Here, we present a dataset that allows for the development and benchmarking of algorithms to classify feature-based attention using single-trial EEG data. The dataset includes EEG and behavioural responses from 30 healthy human participants who performed a feature-based motion discrimination task on frequency tagged visual stimuli.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0060.002
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207