MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7036953139

Design of fMRI-compatible electronic musical interfaces

2008· article· en· W7036953139 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology
KeywordsScannerInterface (matter)Electronic musicKey (lock)Task (project management)Functional magnetic resonance imagingFunction (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The designs of two functional magnetic resonance imaging-compatible electronic interfaces for use in neuropsychological studies involving musical tasks are presented. The devices, a two-button response box in the form of a computer mouse and a piano keyboard, were designed for rhythmic tapping and piano performance tasks, respectively. In order to correlate changes in neural activation acquired through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with task performance, the electronic collection of behavioural data, such as the timing of button or key presses was required. These behavioural measures were captured electronically and communicated to a host computer for synchronization with feedback, stimuli, and the MRI scanner itself. As well, data was logged for offline analysis. Due to the intense and volatile electromagnetic fields, most commercially-available electronic interfaces do not function properly and can even pose a serious safety hazard within the MRI scanner environment. Therefore these custom-designed interfaces were free of ferromagnetic parts and all electronic components were relegated to the control room outside of the scanner environment. Acquisition of button and key presses was accomplished using fibre optic sensors, which are immune to electromagnetic interference. The devices performed successfully within the scanner, and MRI scans showed no image artifacts caused by the prototypes. Sensing of key and button transition velocity was sufficient after extensive calibration. Next generation prototypes are planned and will implement more robust and tighter tolerance manufacturing, improved sensing techniques, the acquisition of isometric forces, and an auto-calibration scheme.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending→French-language works237,207→