ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Comparing Methods of Feature Extraction of Brain Activities for Octave Illusion Classification Using Machine Learning.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to find an efficient method to determine features that characterize octave illusion data. Specifically, this study compared the efficiency of several automatic feature selection methods for automatic feature extraction of the auditory steady-state responses (ASSR) data in brain activities to distinguish auditory octave illusion and nonillusion groups by the difference in ASSR amplitudes using machine learning. We compared univariate selection, recursive feature elimination, principal component analysis, and feature importance by testifying the results of feature selection methods by using several machine learning algorithms: linear regression, random forest, and support vector machine. The univariate selection with the SVM as the classification method showed the highest accuracy result, 75%, compared to 66.6% without using feature selection. The received results will be used for future work on the explanation of the mechanism behind the octave illusion phenomenon and creating an algorithm for automatic octave illusion classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.