Trends in Compressive Sensing for EEG Signal Processing Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tremendous progress of big data acquisition and processing in the field of neural engineering has enabled a better understanding of the patient’s brain disorders with their neural rehabilitation, restoration, detection, and diagnosis. An integration of compressive sensing (CS) and neural engineering emerges as a new research area, aiming to deal with a large volume of neurological data for fast speed, long-term, and energy-saving purposes. Furthermore, electroencephalography (EEG) signals for brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) have shown to be very promising, with diverse neuroscience applications. In this review, we focused on EEG-based approaches which have benefited from CS in achieving fast and energy-saving solutions. In particular, we examine the current practices, scientific opportunities, and challenges of CS in the growing field of BCIs. We emphasized on summarizing major CS reconstruction algorithms, the sparse basis, and the measurement matrix used in CS to process the EEG signal. This literature review suggests that the selection of a suitable reconstruction algorithm, sparse basis, and measurement matrix can help to improve the performance of current CS-based EEG studies. In this paper, we also aim at providing an overview of the reconstruction free CS approach and the related literature in the field. Finally, we discuss the opportunities and challenges that arise from pushing the integration of the CS framework for BCI applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".