MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383312765 · doi:10.1088/1361-6579/ace510

ETucker: a constrained tensor decomposition for single trial ERP extraction

2023· article· en· W4383312765 on OpenAlexaff
Behrad TaghiBeyglou, Mohammad Bagher Shamsollahi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicTensor decomposition and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTensor decompositionExtraction (chemistry)DecompositionTensor (intrinsic definition)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsChemistryChromatographyPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective. In this paper, we propose a new tensor decomposition to extract event-related potentials (ERP) by adding a physiologically meaningful constraint to the Tucker decomposition. Approach. We analyze the performance of the proposed model and compare it with Tucker decomposition by synthesizing a dataset. The simulated dataset is generated using a 12th-order autoregressive model in combination with independent component analysis (ICA) on real no-task electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings. The dataset is manipulated to contain the P300 ERP component and to cover different SNR conditions, ranging from 0 to −30 dB, to simulate the presence of the P300 component in extremely noisy recordings. Furthermore, in order to assess the practicality of the proposed methodology in real-world scenarios, we utilized the brain-computer interface (BCI) competition III-dataset II. Main results. Our primary results demonstrate the superior performance of our approach compared to conventional methods commonly employed for single-trial estimation. Additionally, our method outperformed both Tucker decomposition and non-negative Tucker decomposition in the synthesized dataset. Furthermore, the results obtained from real-world data exhibited meaningful performance and provided insightful interpretations for the extracted P300 component. Significance. The findings suggest that the proposed decomposition is eminently capable of extracting the target P300 component’s waveform, including latency and amplitude as well as its spatial location, using single-trial EEG recordings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.349
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.070 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological MeasurementSame topicTensor decomposition and applicationsFrench-language works237,207