A Machine Learning Approach to Classifying EEG Data Collected with or without Haptic Feedback during a Simulated Drilling Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI), computer simulations, and virtual reality (VR) are increasingly becoming accessible tools that can be leveraged to implement training protocols and educational resources. Typical assessment tools related to sensory and neural processing associated with task performance in virtual environments often rely on self-reported surveys, unlike electroencephalography (EEG), which is often used to compare the effects of different types of sensory feedback (e.g., auditory, visual, and haptic) in simulation environments in an objective manner. However, it can be challenging to know which aspects of the EEG signal represent the impact of different types of sensory feedback on neural processing. Machine learning approaches offer a promising direction for identifying EEG signal features that differentiate the impact of different types of sensory feedback during simulation training. For the current study, machine learning techniques were applied to differentiate neural circuitry associated with haptic and non-haptic feedback in a simulated drilling task. Nine EEG channels were selected and analyzed, extracting different time-domain, frequency-domain, and nonlinear features, where 360 features were tested (40 features per channel). A feature selection stage identified the most relevant features, including the Hurst exponent of 13-21 Hz, kurtosis of 21-30 Hz, power spectral density of 21-30 Hz, variance of 21-30 Hz, and spectral entropy of 13-21 Hz. Using those five features, trials with haptic feedback were correctly identified from those without haptic feedback with an accuracy exceeding 90%, increasing to 99% when using 10 features. These results show promise for the future application of machine learning approaches to predict the impact of haptic feedback on neural processing during VR protocols involving drilling tasks, which can inform future applications of VR and simulation for occupational skill acquisition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".