MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386838331 · doi:10.18280/ria.370420

Non-Invasive Tongue-Based HCI System Using Deep Learning for Microgesture Detection

2023· article· en· W4386838331 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dhuha F. Jasim, Waleed F. Shareef

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTongueDeep learningArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tongue-based Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) systems have surfaced as alternative input devices offering significant benefits to individuals with severe disabilities.However, these systems often employ invasive methods such as dental retainers, tongue piercings, and multiple mouth electrodes.These methods, due to hygiene issues and obtrusiveness, are deemed impractical for daily use.This paper presents a novel non-invasive tonguebased HCI system that utilizes deep learning for microgesture detection.The proposed system overcomes the limitations of previous methods by non-invasively detecting gestures.This is accomplished by measuring tongue vibrations via an accelerometer positioned on the Genioglossus muscle, thereby eliminating the need for in-mouth installations.The system's performance was evaluated by comparing the classification results of deep learning with four widely-used supervised machine learning algorithms, namely K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Decision Trees, and Random Forests.Raw data were preprocessed in both time and frequency domains to extract relevant patterns before classification.In addition, a deep learning Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model was trained on the raw data, leveraging its proficiency in processing time series data and capturing intricate patterns automatically using convolutional and pooling layers.The CNN model demonstrated a 97% success rate in tongue gesture detection, indicating its high accuracy.The proposed system is also lowprofile, lightweight, and cost-effective, making it suitable for daily use in various contexts.This study thus introduces a non-invasive, efficient, and practical approach to tongue-based HCI systems.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207