MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318938973 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2023.102019

A two for one special: EEG hyperscanning using a single-person EEG recording setup

2023· article· en· W4318938973 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectroencephalographyComputer scienceSynchronizingSpeech recognitionSynchronization (alternating current)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EEG hyperscanning refers to recording electroencephalographic (EEG) data from multiple participants simultaneously. Many hyperscanning experimental designs seek to mimic naturalistic behavior, relying on unpredictable participant-generated stimuli. The majority of this research has focused on neural oscillatory activity that is quantified over hundreds of milliseconds or more. This contrasts with traditional event-related potential (ERP) research in which analysis focuses on transient responses, often only tens of milliseconds in duration. Deriving ERPs requires precise time-locking between stimuli and EEG recordings, and thus typically relies on pre-set stimuli that are presented to participants by a system that controls stimulus timing and synchronization with an EEG system. EEG hyperscanning methods typically use separate EEG amplifiers for each participant, increasing cost and complexity - including challenges in synchronizing data between systems. Here, we describe a method that allows for simultaneous acquisition of EEG data from a pair of participants engaged in conversation, using a single EEG system with simultaneous audio data collection that is synchronized with the EEG recording. This allows for the post-hoc insertion of trigger codes so that it is possible to analyze ERPs time-locked to specific events. We further demonstrate methods for deriving ERPs elicited by another person's spontaneous speech, using this setup.•EEG hyperscanning method using a single EEG amplifier•EEG hyperscanning method allowing simultaneous recording of audio data directly into the EEG data file for perfect synchronization•EEG method for naturalistic language and human interaction studies that allows the study of event-related potentials time-locked to spontaneous speech.

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.112 · 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