MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388942832 · doi:10.3390/s23239352

EEG Amplitude Modulation Analysis across Mental Tasks: Towards Improved Active BCIs

2023· article· en· W4388942832 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Rosanne, Alcyr Alves de Oliveira, Tiago H. Falk

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceElectroencephalographyComputer scienceBinary classificationSupport vector machineArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)Brain activity and meditationSpeech recognitionMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology has emerged as an influential communication tool with extensive applications across numerous fields, including entertainment, marketing, mental state monitoring, and particularly medical neurorehabilitation. Despite its immense potential, the reliability of BCI systems is challenged by the intricacies of data collection, environmental factors, and noisy interferences, making the interpretation of high-dimensional electroencephalogram (EEG) data a pressing issue. While the current trends in research have leant towards improving classification using deep learning-based models, our study proposes the use of new features based on EEG amplitude modulation (AM) dynamics. Experiments on an active BCI dataset comprised seven mental tasks to show the importance of the proposed features, as well as their complementarity to conventional power spectral features. Through combining the seven mental tasks, 21 binary classification tests were explored. In 17 of these 21 tests, the addition of the proposed features significantly improved classifier performance relative to using power spectral density (PSD) features only. Specifically, the average kappa score for these classifications increased from 0.57 to 0.62 using the combined feature set. An examination of the top-selected features showed the predominance of the AM-based measures, comprising over 77% of the top-ranked features. We conclude this paper with an in-depth analysis of these top-ranked features and discuss their potential for use in neurophysiology.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207