MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Automated Hyper-Parameter Optimization for Eye Movement Artifact Removal

2024· article· en· W4405489704 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Comadurán Márquez, Eli Kinney‐Lang, Adam Kirton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtifact (error)Computer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMovement (music)Eye movementAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain-computer interface (BCI) systems allow users to control external devices with their brain waves. However, electroencephalography (EEG) signals used by most BCI systems are prone to artifacts from various sources (e.g., muscle activity, eye movements, and electrical interference). These artifacts can degrade the performance and usability of BCI systems. Many tools exist to eliminate these artifacts. However, not all methods are automated, and some might require tuning certain hyper-parameters for optimal performance. We propose a method to automatically optimize the hyper-parameters of an eye blink artifact removal tool to improve the removal of artifacts in resting state EEG. We use a subset of eye movement artifacts to optimize the hyper-parameters using the EEG Quality Index (EQI) as the objective function. The optimized hyper-parameters are then used in a test artifact to quantify the improvement of the EQI. Results show improvement in the EQI when compared to the default artifact removal hyper-parameters, and raw EEG traces. We conclude that our method can provide a personalized and robust artifact removal solution for BCI users with complex needs.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces→French-language works237,207→