MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Customized Development and Hardware Optimization of a Fully-Spiking SNN for EEG-Based Seizure Detection

2024· article· en· W4405710010 on OpenAlexaff
Abdul Muneeb, Hossein Kassiri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyComputer scienceComputer hardwareEmbedded systemArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a customized approach in development of a fully-spiking neural networks (SNNs) tailored for energy-efficient data-driven signal processing in implantable brain neural interfaces. The importance of a customized design lies in its ability to optimize hardware and energy efficiency while maintaining high classification performance. Our approach allows for the customization of key parameters, including quantization resolution of weights and biases, encoding scheme, encoder placement, temporal resolution, neuron type, and internal parameters such as threshold value, resetting process, and refractory period. We demonstrated the efficacy of this customization in improving hardware and energy efficiency through model development, software-based training and testing, and subsequent synthesis using Verilog RTL on FPGAs and ASIC implementation. Performance evaluation using the CHB-MIT dataset showed an average sensitivity of $\mathbf{9 2. 2 \%}$ and specificity of $\mathbf{9 7. 3 \%}$ for seizure detection. The synthesis reports provided insights into the memory, computation, and energy requirements for hardware implementation, highlighting the efficiency and effectiveness of our approach. Our results show that SNN models leads to only 1% drop of sensitivity compared with a 32-bit real-value resolution SCNN model, while offering more than 4 times improvement in memory efficiency.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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