ArticleScientific reports2024
Detecting cognitive traits and occupational proficiency using EEG and statistical inference.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is widely used in classification tasks aimed at detecting various cognitive states or neurological diseases using noninvasive electroencephalogram (EEG) time series. However, successfully detecting specific cognitive skills in a healthy population, independent of subject, remains challenging. This study compared the subject-independent classification performance of three different pipelines: supervised and Riemann projections with logistic regression and handcrafted power spectral features with light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM). 128-channel EEGs were recorded from 26 healthy volunteers while they solved arithmetic, logical, and verbal tasks. The participants were divided into two groups based on their higher education and occupation: specialists in mathematics and humanities. The balanced accuracy of the education type was significantly above chance for all pipelines: 0.84-0.89, 0.85-0.88, and 0.86-0.88 for each type of task, respectively. All three pipelines allowed us to distinguish mathematical proficiency based on learning experience with different trade-offs between performance and explainability. Our results suggest that ML approaches could also be effective for recognizing individual cognitive traits using EEG.
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.