MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408557787 · doi:10.1177/15500594251325273

Optimizing Bioimaging: Quantum Computing-Inspired Bald Eagle Search Optimization for Motor Imaging EEG Feature Selection

2025· article· en· W4408557787 on OpenAlexaff
Chandan Choubey, S. Karunakaran, Gaurav Vishnu Londhe, Vrince Vimal, M. K. Kirubakaran

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical EEG and Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceElectroencephalographyBrain–computer interfaceCurse of dimensionalityFeature selectionFeature extractionPattern recognition (psychology)PreprocessorMotor imageryContext (archaeology)NeuroimagingNormalization (sociology)Machine learningPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most important objectives in brain-computer interfaces (BCI) is to identify a subset of characteristics that represents the electroencephalographic (EEG) signal while eliminating elements that are duplicate or irrelevant. Neuroscientific research is advanced by bioimaging, especially in the field of BCI. In this work, a novel quantum computing-inspired bald eagle search optimization (QC-IBESO) method is used to improve the effectiveness of motor imagery EEG feature selection. This method can prevent the dimensionality curse and improve the classification accuracy of the system by lowering the dimensionality of the dataset. The dataset that was used in the assessment is from BCI Competition-III IV-A. To normalize the EEG data, Z-score normalization is used in the preprocessing stage. Principal component analysis reduces dimensionality and preserves important information during feature extraction. In the context of motor imagery, the QC-IBESO approach is utilized to select certain EEG characteristics for bioimaging. This facilitates the exploration of intricate search spaces and improves the detection of critical EEG signals related to motor imagery. The study contrasts the suggested approach with conventional methods like neural networks, support vector machines and logistic regression. To evaluate the efficacy of the suggested strategy in contrast to current techniques, performance measures such as F1-score, precision, accuracy and recall are computed. This work advances the field of feature selection techniques in bioimaging and opens up a novel and intriguing direction for the investigation of quantum-inspired optimization in neuroimaging.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EEG and NeuroscienceSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207