Machine learning performance in EEG-based mental workload classification across task types: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature features a variety of tasks and methodologies to induce mental workload (MWL) and to assess the performance of MWL estimation models. Because no standardized benchmark task or set of tasks exists, the comparison of different machine learning (ML) solutions in this field is difficult, as their performance is significantly dependent on these factors. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive examination of ML models' performance in EEG-based MWL classification across task types. To achieve this, we categorized ML studies based on the task type used in their experiments and compared models' performances across these categories. Notably, a significant drop in MWL classification accuracy was observed among the best-performing models in multitasking studies where MWL was rated based on quantitative task load, compared to those in single-tasking studies and studies where MWL was subjectively rated. This points to the inherent challenges associated with estimating MWL in more complex tasks such as multitasking. This is particularly relevant for practical applications, as real-world tasks typically involve some degree of multitasking. By comparing ML models' performances across task types, this review provides valuable insights into the state-of-the-art of EEG-based MWL estimation, highlights existing gaps in the field, and points to open questions for further research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".