ArticleScientific reports2025
Use of computer vision analysis for labeling inattention periods in EEG recordings with visual stimuli.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) recordings with visual stimuli require detailed coding to determine the periods of participant's attention. Here we propose to use a supervised machine learning model and off-the-shelf video cameras only. We extract computer vision-based features such as head pose, gaze, and face landmarks from the video of the participant, and train the machine learning model (multi-layer perceptron) on an initial dataset, then adapt it with a small subset of data from a new participant. Using a sample size of 23 autistic children with and without co-occurring ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) aged 49-95 months, and training on additional 2560 labeled frames (equivalent to 85.3 s of the video) of a new participant, the median area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for inattention detection was 0.989 (IQR 0.984-0.993) and the median inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa) with a trained human annotator was 0.888. Agreement with human annotations for nine participants was in the 0.616-0.944 range. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of automatic tools to detect inattention during EEG recordings, and its potential to reduce the subjectivity and time burden of human attention coding. The tool for model adaptation and visualization of the computer vision features is made publicly available to the research community.
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.