REVIEW 1 cited by
Uncertainty Quantification in Machine Learning for Biosignal Applications -- A Review
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) has gained traction in an attempt to improve the interpretability and robustness of machine learning predictions. Specifically (medical) biosignals such as electroencephalography (EEG), electrocardiography (ECG), electrooculography (EOG), and electromyography (EMG) could benefit from good UQ, since these suffer from a poor signal-to-noise ratio, and good human interpretability is pivotal for medical applications. In this paper, we review the state of the art of applying Uncertainty Quantification to Machine Learning tasks in the biosignal domain. We present various methods, shortcomings, uncertainty measures and theoretical frameworks that currently exist in this application domain. We address misconceptions in the field, provide recommendations for future work, and discuss gaps in the literature in relation to diagnostic implementations as well as control for prostheses or brain-computer interfaces. Overall it can be concluded that promising UQ methods are available, but that research is needed on how people and systems may interact with an uncertainty-model in a (clinical) environment
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Uncertainty Quantification for Motor Imagery BCI -- Machine Learning vs. Deep Learning
Classical BCI classifiers (CSP-LDA, MDRM) give better calibrated uncertainty than deep learning, which tends to be overconfident, but deep learning remains more accurate.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.