Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Computer Vision Based Neurology Brain Activity Rejection Architecture and Implementation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a convolutional neural network reading standard topographic heatmap images of EEG independent components can automate the expert task of rejecting non-brain activity, cutting processing time by a factor of 7,200 while

desk verdict Useful incremental CNN-based ICA labeling on real clinical EEG data, but the reported accuracy is internally inconsistent and the evaluation is under-specified; worth refereeing with a request for major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21654 v1 pith:OAQ36HUM submitted 2026-07-22 q-bio.NC cs.LGphysics.data-anq-bio.QM

Zag ElSayed , Nathan Suer , Grace Westerkamp , Jack Yanchen Liu , Makoto Miyakoshi , Craig Erickson , Ernest Pedapati This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCcs.LGphysics.data-anq-bio.QM
keywords EEGindependentcomponentanalysisICArejectionconvolutionalneuralnetworktopographicheatmapartifactremovalbrainactivitylabelingautomatedclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper wants to show that the most labor-intensive step in cleaning EEG recordings — deciding which independent source signals (components) are genuine brain activity and which are artifacts — can be performed automatically by a computer-vision model. The model looks at a single 250×250 topographic heatmap of each component and labels it as brain or artifact. Trained on 5,000 clinical images validated by experts, the model reports 89.45% accuracy, with a mean test accuracy of 87.5% and a 7,200-fold reduction in the time a neurologist would spend on the task. If this holds beyond the training data, it makes large-scale EEG studies feasible and brings near-real-time automated artifact rejection within reach. The paper also positions the deliberately simple network as a step toward low-power hardware implementation.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a convolutional neural network that takes a 250×250 topographic heatmap of an ICA component and outputs a brain/artifact label. Heatmaps are generated from power spectral density computed across six frequency bands, from delta through high gamma, over 128 scalp channels. The network consists of four convolutional blocks with batch normalization and scaling, followed by a flatten layer and two dense layers; ReLU activation was selected after comparing accuracy and power consumption. This architecture is what demonstrates that spatial pattern recognition alone, without handcrafted features, can reproduce expert labeling decisions.

What would settle it

Run the trained model on new ICA components recorded with a different electrode layout and compare its labels with consensus labels from two independent expert reviewers; if agreement drops toward chance or no longer reaches the reported accuracy, the visual-heatmap premise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that a purely visual representation of an independent component — the topographic heatmap of its scalp distribution — carries enough information for a convolutional network to separate brain activity from artifacts with roughly 89% accuracy. The authors demonstrate this by training a four-block convolutional network on 5,000 expert-labeled heatmap images and testing it with cross-validation plus expert re-inspection. The result implies that expert ICA labeling, normally a subjective 30-minute-per-recording task, can be reduced to a fast automated classification that slots into existing EEG analysis workflows.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that a single 250×250 topographic heatmap of one separated EEG source component carries enough distinctive visual information to tell artifacts from brain activity, and that the 5,000 expert labels used for training are accurate and representative.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Per-recording ICA labeling time can drop from roughly 30 minutes of expert review to near-instant automated classification.
  • Large-scale EEG studies that would be impractical with manual labeling become feasible.
  • Automated rejection can operate in near real time, supporting brain-computer interfaces and clinical monitoring.
  • The model can be inserted into established EEG analysis pipelines without altering data collection or hardware.
  • The deliberately simple CNN keeps open the path to an embedded, low-power implementation for bedside use.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the reported 7,200-fold speedup compares automated classification against human review time only; the full pipeline still requires ICA decomposition and heatmap rendering, so end-to-end savings will be smaller.
  • Inference: because the network sees only static scalp topographies, artifacts defined mainly by temporal or spectral dynamics may be missed; a head-to-head test against a temporal/spectral classifier would reveal this.
  • Inference: whether the model generalizes across electrode caps, montages, and clinical populations is untested; a multi-site label-agreement study would settle it.
  • Inference: a practical product could combine this first-pass visual classifier with a second-pass temporal check, using the CNN where it is strongest and catching its blind spots.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a CNN-based tool that classifies EEG ICA components from 250×250 topographic heatmap images, targeting automated rejection of non-brain activity in clinical EEG workflows. The authors use 5,000 IC images from 128-channel EEG recordings collected at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, report a 7200-fold processing-time reduction, and claim a headline accuracy of 89.45% in the abstract, while Section IV reports a mean accuracy of 87.5% and a lowest accuracy of 82.36%. The paper describes the architecture (four convolutional blocks, dense layers, ReLU activation), the data transformation pipeline, and a brief error analysis.

Significance. If the performance claim were supported by a rigorous, well-documented evaluation, this work would make a practical contribution to automated ICA rejection, with clear value for large-scale EEG studies and near-real-time clinical applications. The use of real clinical data, a concrete CNN architecture, and an explicit attempt at error analysis are strengths. However, the central accuracy and speedup claims are not currently verifiable: the reported accuracy figures are inconsistent, the evaluation protocol is under-specified, class-level performance is missing, and the feedback loop in Fig. 8 risks making evaluation labels non-independent. These issues are load-bearing because the entire contribution rests on the claimed accuracy and speed advantage over manual labeling.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract reports an accuracy of 89.45%, while Section IV reports a mean accuracy of 87.5% and a lowest accuracy of 82.36%, with no reconciliation. This inconsistency directly affects the central claim. Please specify the exact test set size, how the 89.45% figure is computed, and provide confidence intervals or per-experiment variability across the 50 experiments.
  2. [Section IV-A and Fig. 8] The evaluation protocol is too vague. '50 experiments with 5000 inputs' does not describe how many unique subjects, how train/validation/test splits were formed, or whether any test data were used for model selection. Fig. 8 shows an 'Expert Validation' feedback path into the dataset; if validation images influence labels or training data, test labels may not be independent. Provide an explicit data-flow statement with disjoint train/validation/test partitions and clarify the role of the feedback loop.
  3. [Section IV and Fig. 10] No class distribution or class-wise metrics are reported. If the 5,000 IC images are imbalanced, an accuracy near 89% could be achieved by a trivial majority-class classifier. The confusion matrix in Fig. 10 is image-only; provide numerical counts. Report per-class precision, recall, F1, and clarify whether the task is binary (target vs non-target) or multi-class as in ICLabel.
  4. [Section IV] The 7200-fold speedup claim lacks a defined comparison. What is the baseline manual time, and was it measured in this study or taken from the literature? Is the comparison per IC, per recording, or per pipeline? The speedup is a central practical claim and needs the same evaluation rigor as the accuracy metric.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III] The paragraph describing the PSD calculation and frequency bands is duplicated verbatim, likely an editorial error.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The 'Binary Step' activation is written as a piecewise linear function with parameter α, which does not match the usual binary step definition. Please correct or clarify.
  3. [Index Terms] The index terms include 'Brian' instead of 'Brain'.
  4. [Section IV-B] The phrase 'satiric linear statistical methods' is unclear; likely 'standard' or 'classic' is intended.
  5. [Section IV-A] '50 experiments with 5000 inputs, addition to the automatic cross-validation' should read 'in addition to.' Also, 'perdition' should be 'prediction.'
  6. [Section IV-B] The statistical test referred to with p<0.05 is not described. Specify the test, sample size, and whether multiple comparisons were controlled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is a supervised CNN trained on expert-labeled heatmap images, and its accuracy claim is an empirical result against those labels, not a constructional identity.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its central accuracy claim from its inputs by definition. The CNN is trained to map ICA topographic heatmap images to expert-assigned labels, and the reported accuracy is a measured agreement with held-out expert labels. This is standard supervised classification, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The speedup claim is a wall-clock comparison between manual and automated labeling, not an algebraic identity. The only self-citation ([5]) is used as a comparison baseline for showing improvement; it is not load-bearing for the headline accuracy or speedup claims, and the paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem or ansatz from prior work as a substitute for evidence. The expert-validation feedback loop described in Section IV-A is a potential evaluation-protocol concern about label independence and generalization, but it is not an equivalence-by-construction of the model output with its training target; experts are described as validating every image, not as blindly accepting model predictions. Concerns about unreconciled accuracy figures (89.45% vs. 87.5% mean), missing class-wise metrics, and the absence of an external benchmark such as ICLabel are correctness and reporting risks, not circularity. Under the required standard—exhibiting a specific reduction such as Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction—no circular step can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities. Its burden lies entirely in trained neural-network parameters, hand-chosen hyperparameters and frequency bands, and domain assumptions about the sufficiency and representativeness of expert-labeled heatmap images.

free parameters (3)
  • CNN weights = 1,066,863 trainable parameters
    The accuracy claim depends on weights fitted to the CCHMC training data; no holdout details or code are provided to audit whether the reported accuracy reflects generalization.
  • Training hyperparameters = not reported (50 epochs; ReLU selected; learning rate, batch size, filter sizes not given)
    Hyperparameters were tuned, but the tuning procedure and final values are not reported, so the result is not reproducible.
  • EEG frequency band boundaries = 0.1–4, 4–8, 8–14, 14–30, 30–47, 47–64 Hz
    Chosen by hand for the PSD-based heatmap generation; this modeling choice shapes the input images and is not justified or compared to alternatives.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Expert manual labels of ICA components are correct ground truth
    Training and evaluation assume the neurologist labels used to supervise the CNN are accurate; no inter-rater reliability or label adjudication process is reported (Section IV).
  • domain assumption ICA component class can be inferred from a single topographic heatmap image
    The model input is a 250×250 heatmap; temporal dynamics are not directly input except through PSD band summaries, so the visual heatmap is assumed to carry sufficient information (Section III).
  • domain assumption The 5,000-image dataset from 59 subjects is representative of clinical EEG populations
    The dataset is imbalanced (ASD 22, FXS 19, TCD 17, DS 1) and the authors themselves list 'size and diversity of the dataset' as a primary limitation (Section IV-B).
  • domain assumption Welch PSD with Hamming window over six frequency bands captures the discriminative information needed for classification
    This preprocessing choice is stated but not compared to other feature representations, and it determines the content of the heatmap images (Section III).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Computer Vision Based Neurology Brain Activity Rejection Architecture and Implementation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OAQ36HUM

@misc{pith2026260721654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Computer Vision Based Neurology Brain Activity Rejection Architecture and Implementation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OAQ36HUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21654}
}
read the original abstract

The electroencephalogram (EEG) is a valuable and widely applied tool for investigating brain disorders and behavioral changes. It offers a minimally restrictive and non-invasive method. However, challenges in using EEG for cognitive development studies include temporal resolution, signal source localization, and EEG artifacts. Careful consideration of these factors is essential for informed application of EEG technology. Independent component analysis (ICA) effectively isolates source generator processes from signals recorded by multiple, adjacent EEG scalp electrodes. Although ICA decomposition requires manual inspection, selection, and interpretation of independent components (ICs), this process is time consuming and demands expertise. Automated IC classification can achieve sufficient accuracy, expediting large scale EEG research and enabling near real time applications in conjunction with brain activity rejection tasks, which are crucial for medical specialists. This study introduces an automated computer vision based ICA rejection labeling tool compatible with widely used software interfaces like ICLabel and EEGLab. By automating the manual task, the proposed system reduces processing time by 7200 fold and achieves an accuracy of 89.45%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21654 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A portion of an EEG recording of ISO (10-20) with (5) dominant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A sample screenshot of the ICA EEG Labeling Interface used by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An IC labeling example from the ICLabel website [6]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A sample screenshot of an IC labeling Matlab based tool [7]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The EGI HydroCel Geodesic Sensor Net 128-Channel Map’s layout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The detailed CNN Module Architecture diagram generated from Keras [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The proposed architecture process diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The CNN model training an validation accuracy graph for fifty epochs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The confusion matrix for the proposed CNN model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Applications of higher order statistics in electroencephalography signal processing: A comprehensive survey,

    S. A. Khoshnevis and R. Sankar, “Applications of higher order statistics in electroencephalography signal processing: A comprehensive survey,” IEEE Reviews in biomedical engineering, vol. 13, pp. 169–183, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Handbook of psychophysiology,

    D. Pizzagalli, J. Cacioppo, L. Tassinary, and G. Berntson, “Handbook of psychophysiology,” 2007

    2007

  3. [3]

    Synaptic mechanisms of thiopental- induced alterations in synchronized cortical activity,

    H. S. Lukatch and B. M. MacIver, “Synaptic mechanisms of thiopental- induced alterations in synchronized cortical activity,”The J. of the American S of Anesthesiologists, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 1425–1434, 1996

    1996

  4. [4]

    An overview of independent component analysis and its applications,

    G. R. Naik and D. K. Kumar, “An overview of independent component analysis and its applications,”Informatica, vol. 35, no. 1, 2011

    2011

  5. [5]

    Cnn brain label-maker: Computer vision based ica rejection eeg based system architecture,

    Z. ElSayed, N. Suer, G. Westerkamp, J. Y . Liu, M. Miyakoshi, C. Erick- son, and E. Pedapati, “Cnn brain label-maker: Computer vision based ica rejection eeg based system architecture,” inThe International FLAIRS Conference Proceedings, vol. 37, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Iclabel: An automated electroencephalographic independent component classifier, dataset, and website,

    L. Pion-Tonachini, K. Kreutz-Delgado, and S. Makeig, “Iclabel: An automated electroencephalographic independent component classifier, dataset, and website,”NeuroImage, vol. 198, pp. 181–197, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Sample entropy enhanced wavelet-ica denoising technique for eye blink artifact removal from scalp eeg dataset,

    R. Mahajan and B. Morshed, “Sample entropy enhanced wavelet-ica denoising technique for eye blink artifact removal from scalp eeg dataset,” inInternational IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineer- ing, pp. 1394–1397, 11 2013

    2013

  8. [8]

    Tracking of eeg activity using topographic maps,

    L. S. Hooi, H. Nisar, and Y . V . V oon, “Tracking of eeg activity using topographic maps,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Signal and Image Processing Applications (ICSIPA), pp. 287–291, 2015

    2015

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Reliability of resting-state electrophysiology in fragile x syndrome,

    R. Liu, E. V . Pedapati, L. M. Schmitt, R. C. Shaffer, E. G. Smith, K. C. Dominick, L. A. DeStefano, G. Westerkamp, P. Horn, J. A. Sweeney, and C. A. Erickson, “Reliability of resting-state electrophysiology in fragile x syndrome,”Bio in Neuropsychiatry, vol. 9, p. 100070, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Accuracy of high-density eeg electrode position measurement using an optical scanner compared with the photogrammetry method,

    O. Gy ¨orfi, C.-T. Ip, A. B. Justesen, M. L. Gam-Jensen, C. Rømer, M. Fabricius, L. H. Pinborg, and S. Beniczky, “Accuracy of high-density eeg electrode position measurement using an optical scanner compared with the photogrammetry method,”Clinical Neurophysiology Practice, vo...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Compressibility of high-density eeg signals in stroke patients,

    N. Mammone, S. De Salvo, C. Ieracitano, S. Marino, E. Cartella, A. Bramanti, and R. Giorgianni, “Compressibility of high-density eeg signals in stroke patients,”Sensors, vol. 18, no. 12, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Utilizing deep learning towards multi-modal bio-sensing and vision-based affective computing,

    Siddharth, T.-P. Jung, and T. J. Sejnowski, “Utilizing deep learning towards multi-modal bio-sensing and vision-based affective computing,” IEEE Trans on Affective Computing, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 96–107, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    A review on machine learning for eeg signal processing in bioengineering,

    M.-P. Hosseini, A. Hosseini, and K. Ahi, “A review on machine learning for eeg signal processing in bioengineering,”IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 204–218, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Predicting age from brain eeg signals—a machine learning approach,

    O. Al Zoubi, C. Ki Wong, R. T. Kuplicki, H.-w. Yeh, A. Mayeli, H. Refai, M. Paulus, and J. Bodurka, “Predicting age from brain eeg signals—a machine learning approach,”Frontiers in aging neuroscience, vol. 10, p. 184, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Deep neural architectures for mapping scalp to intracranial eeg,

    A. Antoniades, L. Spyrou, D. Martin-Lopez, A. Valentin, G. Alarcon, S. Sanei, and C. C. Took, “Deep neural architectures for mapping scalp to intracranial eeg,”International journal of neural systems, vol. 28, no. 08, p. 1850009, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Eeg signal analysis of patients with epilepsy disorder using machine learning techniques,

    M. G ¨unay and T. Ensari, “Eeg signal analysis of patients with epilepsy disorder using machine learning techniques,” in2018 Electric Elec- tronics, Computer Science, Biomedical Engineerings’ Meeting (EBBT), pp. 1–4, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Automated classification and removal of eeg artifacts with svm and wavelet-ica,

    C. Y . Sai, N. Mokhtar, H. Arof, P. Cumming, and M. Iwahashi, “Automated classification and removal of eeg artifacts with svm and wavelet-ica,”IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 664–670, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Classification of eeg signals based on pattern recognition ap- proach,

    H. U. Amin, W. Mumtaz, A. R. Subhani, M. N. M. Saad, and A. S. Malik, “Classification of eeg signals based on pattern recognition ap- proach,”Frontiers in computational neuroscience, vol. 11, p. 103, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Multimodal data analysis of epileptic eeg and rs-fmri via deep learning and edge computing,

    M.-P. Hosseini, T. X. Tran, D. Pompili, K. Elisevich, and H. Soltanian- Zadeh, “Multimodal data analysis of epileptic eeg and rs-fmri via deep learning and edge computing,”Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, vol. 104, p. 101813, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Deep learning enabled auto- matic abnormal eeg identification,

    S. Roy, I. Kiral-Kornek, and S. Harrer, “Deep learning enabled auto- matic abnormal eeg identification,” in2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 2756–2759, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    What are decision trees?,

    C. Kingsford and S. L. Salzberg, “What are decision trees?,”Nature biotechnology, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1011–1013, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Non linear ica and logistic regression for classification of epilepsy from eeg signals,

    H. Rajaguru and S. K. Prabhakar, “Non linear ica and logistic regression for classification of epilepsy from eeg signals,” in2017 international conference of electronics, communication and aerospace technology (ICECA), vol. 1, pp. 577–580, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Deep learning for hybrid eeg-fnirs brain–computer interface: application to motor imagery classification,

    A. M. Chiarelli, P. Croce, A. Merla, and F. Zappasodi, “Deep learning for hybrid eeg-fnirs brain–computer interface: application to motor imagery classification,”J of neural eng, vol. 15, no. 3, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Classifying the perceptual interpretations of a bistable image using eeg and artificial neural networks,

    A. E. Hramov, V . A. Maksimenko, S. V . Pchelintseva, A. E. Runnova, V . V . Grubov, V . Y . Musatov, M. O. Zhuravlev, A. A. Koronovskii, and A. N. Pisarchik, “Classifying the perceptual interpretations of a bistable image using eeg and artificial neural networks,”Frontiers in...

    2017

  17. [25]

    A cross-sectional evaluation of meditation experience on electroencephalography data by artificial neural network and support vector machine classifiers,

    Y .-H. Lee, Y .-J. Hsieh, Y .-J. Shiah, Y .-H. Lin, C.-Y . Chen, Y .-C. Tyan, J. GengQiu, C.-Y . Hsu, and S. C.-J. Chen, “A cross-sectional evaluation of meditation experience on electroencephalography data by artificial neural network and support vector machine classifiers,” ...

    2017

  18. [26]

    Epileptic seizure anticipation and localisation of epileptogenic region using eeg signals,

    A. Sharma, J. Rai, and R. Tewari, “Epileptic seizure anticipation and localisation of epileptogenic region using eeg signals,”Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 203–216, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    A machine learning framework involving eeg-based functional connectivity to diagnose major depressive disorder (mdd),

    W. Mumtaz, S. S. A. Ali, M. A. M. Yasin, and A. S. Malik, “A machine learning framework involving eeg-based functional connectivity to diagnose major depressive disorder (mdd),”Medical & biological engineering & computing, vol. 56, pp. 233–246, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Unsupervised detection and removal of muscle artifacts from scalp eeg recordings using canonical correla- tion analysis, wavelets and random forests,

    M. N. Anastasiadou, M. Christodoulakis, E. S. Papathanasiou, S. S. Papacostas, and G. D. Mitsis, “Unsupervised detection and removal of muscle artifacts from scalp eeg recordings using canonical correla- tion analysis, wavelets and random forests,”Clinical Neurophysiology, vol...

    2017

  21. [29]

    Eeg signal analysis for seizure detection using discrete wavelet transform and random forest,

    S. Bose, V . Rama, N. Warangal, and C. R. Rao, “Eeg signal analysis for seizure detection using discrete wavelet transform and random forest,” in 2017 International Conference on Computer and Applications (ICCA), pp. 369–378, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Decoding index finger position from eeg using random forests,

    S. Weichwald, T. Meyer, B. Sch ¨olkopf, T. Ball, and M. Grosse-Wentrup, “Decoding index finger position from eeg using random forests,” in2014 4th Int. Workshop on Cognitive Info. Proc, pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Detecting dark spot eggs based on cnn googlenet model,

    M.-l. Jiang, P.-l. Wu, and F. Li, “Detecting dark spot eggs based on cnn googlenet model,” inSimulation Tools and Techniques: 12th EAI International Conference, SIMUtools 2020, Guiyang, China, August 28- 29, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 12, pp. 116–126, Springer, 2021

    2020

  24. [32]

    Data augmentation for deep- learning-based electroencephalography,

    E. Lashgari, D. Liang, and U. Maoz, “Data augmentation for deep- learning-based electroencephalography,”Journal of Neuroscience Meth- ods, vol. 346, p. 108885, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Biased dropout and crossmap dropout: learning towards effective dropout regularization in convolutional neural network,

    A. Poernomo and D.-K. Kang, “Biased dropout and crossmap dropout: learning towards effective dropout regularization in convolutional neural network,”Neural networks, vol. 104, pp. 60–67, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Cole-cnn: Context-learning convolutional neural network with adaptive loss function for lung nodule segmentation,

    G. Pezzano, V . R. Ripoll, and P. Radeva, “Cole-cnn: Context-learning convolutional neural network with adaptive loss function for lung nodule segmentation,”Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 198, p. 105792, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.