Detecting Blinks in Healthy and Parkinson's EEG: A Deep Learning Perspective

Artem Lensky; Yiding Qiu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Detecting Blinks in Healthy and Parkinson's EEG: A Deep Learning Perspective

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A CNN-RNN hybrid beats ten deep models at EEG blink segmentation on raw frontal signals.

desk verdict Useful comparison idea, thin evidence: the CNN-RNN result is plausible but not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04951 v1 pith:R77HAVPF submitted 2025-09-05 cs.LG

Artem Lensky , Yiding Qiu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords EEGblinkdetectionsequence-to-sequencesegmentationCNN-RNNhybridbidirectionalLSTMParkinson'sdiseasefrontalelectrodesrawsignalprocessingF1-scoremicro

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

This paper tries to establish that a hybrid CNN-RNN architecture—a convolutional feature extractor feeding a bidirectional LSTM—is the most accurate model for turning raw frontal EEG into a per-time-point blink/non-blink label sequence. The case is made by comparing ten architecture families on a public 31-subject dataset split into healthy controls and Parkinson's patients. The strongest result is consistency: CNN-RNN has the top mean F1-micro (0.93178) and the best reported accuracy with one, three, and five channels, and it stays on top in tremor-contaminated Parkinson's recordings even though absolute scores drop. If true, the practical payoff is that blink rate and blink variability—markers linked to attention and neurological disorders—can be measured from as little as one frontal EEG electrode with no hand-crafted blink-morphology features.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the CNN-RNN sequence-to-sequence model: a 1D convolutional stack learns local high-amplitude blink-peak features from raw electrode traces, and a bidirectional LSTM then models temporal context in both directions. Because CNN blocks need fixed windows, a weighted-voting post-processor shifts the analysis window by several offsets and merges the overlapping predictions, so blinks cut off at window edges are still recovered. This combination is what the paper's architecture ranking is built around; every other tested model is a variant or ablation of one of its two stages.

What would settle it

Run the same ten architectures on the same public dataset using leave-one-subject-out cross-validation over all 31 subjects. If the CNN-RNN's F1-micro margin over TCN-RNN or BiLSTM disappears or reverses, the central ranking claim fails. A cheaper test: apply a threshold-based method like BLINKER or RT-Blink to the same held-out subjects; if it matches or beats the reported 93.8% healthy accuracy without training, the deep-learning premise of the comparison weakens.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a CNN-RNN hybrid with a bidirectional LSTM is the best-performing deep architecture for EEG blink segmentation across every electrode configuration tested. On the held-out subjects the model reached 93.8%, 95.4%, and 95.8% accuracy with 1, 3, and 5 channels in healthy participants, and 73.8%, 75.4%, and 75.8% in Parkinson's patients; the Table II mean F1-micro is 0.93178. The paper attributes the margin to the hybrid's ability to combine convolutional extraction of blink waveform shapes with bidirectional temporal context. The same pipeline handles tremor-contaminated PD data with minimal preprocessing, so the authors position it as a way to obtain blink statistics

Load-bearing premise

The reported performance gaps rest on only six held-out subjects (three healthy, three Parkinson's), so the architecture ranking could change if a few different subjects had landed in the test split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single frontal electrode is enough for a useful blink-rate monitor: the one-channel CNN-RNN scored 93.8% in healthy and 73.8% in Parkinson's subjects, within two points of the five-channel version.
Adding channels buys only a small accuracy gain, so the extra computation may not be worth it for wearable devices.
Minimal preprocessing suffices: raw signals can be segmented directly, skipping ICA and hand-crafted blink features.
The same model family is portable to other clinical populations or cognitive-load studies where blink statistics matter.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's own observation that five-channel inputs underperformed one- and three-channel inputs during hyperparameter search but outperformed them at test time indicates the channel ranking is not stable at six test subjects; leave-one-subject-out evaluation would resolve it.
The closing suggestion that forehead blink features could distinguish PD from healthy subjects implies a direct next experiment: feed blink-rate and blink-shape features from the CNN-RNN output into a PD-versus-control classifier.
The abstract mentions transformer-based models, but no transformer appears in the method descriptions or Table II; a reader should treat the comparison as covering RNN, CNN, TCN, and hybrids only.
The equal-parameter depthwise variants trained faster with near-identical F1, so the natural engineering follow-up is deploying the depthwise CNN-RNN on low-power hardware and benchmarking real-time latency.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, what you need to know: this is a head-to-head comparison of ten deep learning architectures for blink segmentation on a public UCSD EEG dataset, and it claims a CNN-RNN hybrid is best. That is a genuinely useful thing to attempt, and if the result holds, it is a contribution to the EEG-artifact and wearable-monitoring crowd. The paper does a few things well. It uses a public dataset with healthy and Parkinson's subjects, it evaluates 1/3/5 frontal channels which matches low-density wearable EEG, and the F1-micro ordering in Table II is clear. The CNN-RNN advantage also shows up in the macro-F1 box plots, so it is not a fluke of one metric.

The soft spot is the evidence under the claim. Test evaluation is on three healthy and three PD subjects, with no per-subject numbers, no confidence intervals, no significance testing. The paper itself reports an anomaly: five-channel inputs scored worse than one- and three-channel in hyperparameter search, but better in testing. That is precisely the kind of instability you expect with a six-subject test set. Then the abstract headlines per-cohort accuracy numbers that never appear in the body, even though the methods section argues accuracy is misleading for this imbalanced task. That is a real internal inconsistency. There is also no code, no split details, no annotation protocol, no window size or training configuration, and the abstract mentions transformer-based models that never appear in the results table. As it stands, the ranking is plausible but not statistically supported.

The flaws are fixable. A table with per-subject F1 and error bars, the missing configuration details, a public code/data release, and at least one classical baseline like BLINKER would change the picture. The central architecture ordering might survive a proper cross-validation; I would not bet against it.

For whom: someone building blink detectors from frontal EEG would get a useful map of what architectures are worth trying. It is not yet a reliable benchmark. I'd send it to peer review, but I would expect major revision before it is publishable.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sequence-to-sequence blink detection pipeline using 1, 3, or 5 frontal EEG electrodes and compares several deep learning architectures—RNNs, CNNs, TCNs, and hybrids—on the public UCSD dataset containing 15 healthy controls and 16 Parkinson's disease patients. The central claim is that a CNN-RNN hybrid (CNN feature extractor with bidirectional LSTM) consistently outperforms all other models, achieving the best blink detection accuracy of 93.8%/95.4%/95.8% in healthy controls and 73.8%/75.4%/75.8% in PD patients for 1/3/5 channels. The body reports mean F1-micro scores with CNN-RNN at 0.93178, followed by TCN-RNN, CNN variants, and simpler RNNs. The evaluation uses a held-out set of 3 healthy and 3 PD subjects.

Significance. If the reported ranking is robust, the paper provides a useful systematic comparison of architecture families for a practical EEG blink-segmentation task on a public dataset. The raw-signal, minimal-preprocessing pipeline and the inclusion of both healthy and PD subjects are strengths, and the paper correctly identifies class imbalance as a reason to prefer F1 over accuracy. However, the main contribution is an empirical architecture ranking supported by a single 6-subject test split with no significance testing, no per-subject breakdown, and no repeated evaluation. The paper's own observation of a channel-count anomaly during hyperparameter search indicates evaluation instability. The abstract's headline accuracy numbers are not tabulated in the body, and the body itself argues that accuracy is misleading. Thus, while the topic is relevant and the experimental setup is reasonable in principle, the statistical support for the central claim is currently insufficient.

major comments (4)

[Table II / Fig. 1 / §V.A.1] The central architecture ranking rests on a single held-out test set of 6 subjects (3 healthy, 3 PD). No per-subject results, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. The paper's own §V.A.1 notes that five-channel inputs scored lower than one- and three-channel inputs during hyperparameter search but slightly better during testing, calling this 'rather anomalous.' This is a concrete indicator that the evaluation is noisy at this sample size. The claim that CNN-RNN 'consistently outperformed' other models needs either repeated splits, per-subject paired comparisons, or a nonparametric significance test; otherwise the ordering in Table II may reflect subject-specific recording conditions rather than architecture quality.
[Abstract / §IV.A] The abstract headlines per-cohort and per-channel accuracy values (93.8/95.4/95.8 and 73.8/75.4/75.8), but these exact numbers are not tabulated anywhere in the body. Moreover, §IV.A states explicitly that accuracy is misleading for this imbalanced task and that F1 is the main performance metric. This is an internal inconsistency: the paper's own methodology argues against the metric used in the abstract's key quantitative claim. The authors should either provide a table with per-cohort and per-channel accuracy and F1 values, or replace the abstract's accuracy figures with the F1-based numbers that the body endorses.
[Fig. 1 / §III.B / §IV.B] The evaluation protocol is not fully specified. Fig. 1's caption describes the held-out 20% as 'validation,' while the text and Fig. 1 legend also refer to 'test.' It is unclear whether the reported best hyperparameters were selected on a validation subset and then evaluated once on the test set, or whether test-set information influenced model selection. This matters because Table II reports the best F1-micro per model after hyperparameter search; if the test set was used repeatedly to pick the winning architecture, the reported ordering is optimistically biased. Please clarify the exact split sizes, the role of the validation set, and how many times the test set was consulted.
[Fig. 4 / Fig. 5 / §V.A.3] The box plots show 'distributions' of F1-micro and F1-macro across models, but the manuscript does not explain what these distributions represent: subjects, hyperparameter configurations, random seeds, or cross-validation folds. Without this information, the visual evidence for CNN-RNN's superiority (e.g., 'highest median performance' in Fig. 4) cannot be interpreted. Please define the source of variation explicitly and report the number of observations per box.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract / Conclusion] Typographical and grammatical errors: 'health cohort' should be 'healthy cohort'; 'involuntarily blinks' should be 'involuntary blinks'; the conclusion is missing a closing parenthesis in 'Parkinson’s syndrome.' These should be corrected.
[Fig. 1] The split labels in Fig. 1 are ambiguous: '70% preserved train', '10% test', '20%' with the caption calling the 20% 'validation.' Please reconcile the percentages and terminology.
[§VII / Appendix] The text states that a heatmap visualization is provided at the end of the paper, but the appendix only contains CNN-DW results and no heatmap appears. Either the heatmap is missing or the reference is incorrect.
[§IV.B / Table I] The hyperparameter search ranges differ across model families (e.g., filter sizes 5/11/15 for CNN and TCN, but 5/15 for CNN-RNN; RNN blocks vary). This makes 'fair comparison across architectures' difficult to establish. Please discuss whether the search budgets were comparable.
[§V,A.3] The statement that depthwise and standard versions are 'designed to have the same number of parameters' is not supported by any parameter counts in the paper. Reporting actual parameter counts would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical architecture comparison on public data; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation chain that reduces to its inputs. Its central claim is an empirical comparison of deep learning models for EEG blink segmentation on the public UCSD dataset, with F1-micro reported for held-out subjects. Hyperparameters were selected on a disjoint validation subset, and the final numbers come from evaluation on held-out healthy and Parkinson's subjects; there is no fitted parameter that is then renamed as a prediction. The self-citations ([2], [5]) motivate blink-rate analysis and describe earlier blink-detection methods, but they are not load-bearing for the architecture comparison, which is evaluated against an external benchmark with manual labels. The small test set and the reported channel-count anomaly are concerns about statistical robustness, not about circularity. No equation or claim is equivalent by construction to its own input, so the paper is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes an empirical comparison rather than a theory, so the ledger lists the choices the comparison rests on: hyperparameters selected by grid search, the unstated window/voting/training configuration, the ambiguous data split, and three domain assumptions about annotation quality, dataset suitability, and the representativeness of the 3+3 held-out set. No new entities are introduced. The counts here are the honest measure of what a reader must accept on faith before the headline numbers mean anything.

free parameters (5)

CNN-RNN best hyperparameters (filter size, num blocks, num filters, RNN blocks, num units) = 15, 2, 32, 2, 32
Chosen by grid search on the validation subgroup (Table II). The winning configuration drives the central claim.
Window size for CNN/TCN fixed-width models = not reported
Required for the sequence-to-sequence windowing and weighted voting; the change in performance across offsets is claimed but the configuration is not given.
Weighted voting offset count and aggregation rule = not reported
Post-processing majority voting over shifted windows is claimed to improve edge cases but the number of offsets is not specified.
Training details (optimizer, learning rate, batch size, epochs, loss) = not reported
These determine the trained models; their absence prevents replication and makes the grid-search comparison hard to interpret.
Train/validation/test split = 70/10/20 (approx. 22/3/6 subjects), ambiguous between validation and test
The split proportions drive which subjects appear in the test results; Fig. 1 text is ambiguous about whether the 10% or the 20% subset is the final test set.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Manual blink annotation on the UCSD recordings is accurate ground truth
Fig. 1 pipeline starts with "Manually annotate"; Section IV evaluates against these labels. No annotation protocol, number of annotators, or inter-rater agreement is provided.
domain assumption The UCSD 31-subject dataset (15 HC, 16 PD) is blink-rich, recorded with eyes open, and comparable across subjects
Section III.A selects frontal electrodes on the assumption that blinks dominate these channels; the dataset itself is not cited or described, so recording conditions are unverified.
domain assumption A held-out set of 3 healthy and 3 PD subjects supports generalization claims about model ranking
Fig. 1 caption states validation was done on 3HC+3PD; the abstract's per-cohort numbers rest on this tiny set without cross-validation.
domain assumption Minimal preprocessing preserves the blink and tremor information the models exploit
Section III says raw signals with minimal preprocessing; the exact preprocessing (filtering, normalization, referencing) is not specified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting Blinks in Healthy and Parkinson's EEG: A Deep Learning Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R77HAVPF

@misc{pith2026250904951,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting Blinks in Healthy and Parkinson's EEG: A Deep Learning Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R77HAVPF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04951}
}

read the original abstract

Blinks in electroencephalography (EEG) are often treated as unwanted artifacts. However, recent studies have demonstrated that blink rate and its variability are important physiological markers to monitor cognitive load, attention, and potential neurological disorders. This paper addresses the critical task of accurate blink detection by evaluating various deep learning models for segmenting EEG signals into involuntary blinks and non-blinks. We present a pipeline for blink detection using 1, 3, or 5 frontal EEG electrodes. The problem is formulated as a sequence-to-sequence task and tested on various deep learning architectures including standard recurrent neural networks, convolutional neural networks (both standard and depth-wise), temporal convolutional networks (TCN), transformer-based models, and hybrid architectures. The models were trained on raw EEG signals with minimal pre-processing. Training and testing was carried out on a public dataset of 31 subjects collected at UCSD. This dataset consisted of 15 healthy participants and 16 patients with Parkinson's disease allowing us to verify the model's robustness to tremor. Out of all models, CNN-RNN hybrid model consistently outperformed other models and achieved the best blink detection accuracy of 93.8%, 95.4% and 95.8% with 1, 3, and 5 channels in the healthy cohort and correspondingly 73.8%, 75.4% and 75.8% in patients with PD. The paper compares neural networks for the task of segmenting EEG recordings to involuntary blinks and no blinks allowing for computing blink rate and other statistics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04951 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The experimental pipeline consists of two parts: the hyperparameter search and the validation of the models on the best [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Illustration of signals from the five selected electrodes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Box plot comparison of F1-Score-macro distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Hyperparameter search for CNN over filter size, number of filters and number of blocks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Development of Evaluation System of Student’s Concentration in Active Learning,

K. Yajima, S. Takahashi, Y . Takeichi, and J. Sato, “Development of Evaluation System of Student’s Concentration in Active Learning,” In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Engineering, Applied Sciences, and Technology (ICEAST), Phuket, Thailand, 2018, pp. 1-4. doi: 10.1109/ICEAST.2018.8434492

work page arXiv 2018
[2]

What Does Eye-Blink Rate Variability Dynamics Tell Us About Cognitive Performance,

R. Paprocki and A. Lenskiy, “What Does Eye-Blink Rate Variability Dynamics Tell Us About Cognitive Performance,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 11, 2017. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00620

work page arXiv 2017
[3]

EEGLAB: an Open Source Toolbox for Analysis of Single-Trial EEG Dynamics, Including Independent Component Analysis,

A. Delorme and S. Makeig, “EEGLAB: an Open Source Toolbox for Analysis of Single-Trial EEG Dynamics, Including Independent Component Analysis,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 9-21, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009

doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 2004
[4]

Automatic spike detection based on adap- tive template matching for extracellular neural recordings,

S. Kim and J. McNames, “Automatic spike detection based on adap- tive template matching for extracellular neural recordings,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 165, no. 2, pp. 165-174, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.05.033

work page doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.05.033 2007
[5]

Extracting Blink Rate Variability from EEG Signals,

R. Paprocki, T. Gebrehiwot, M. Gradinscak, and A. Lenskiy, “Extracting Blink Rate Variability from EEG Signals,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing, vol. 6, no. 3, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

BLINKER: Automated Extraction of Ocular Indices from EEG Enabling Large-Scale Analysis,

K. Kleifges, N. Bigdely-Shamlo, S. E. Kerick, and K. A. Robbins, “BLINKER: Automated Extraction of Ocular Indices from EEG Enabling Large-Scale Analysis,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 11, 2017. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00012

arXiv 2017
[7]

Use of spontaneous blinking for application in human authentication,

A. Jalilifard, D. Chen, A. K. Mutasim, M. R. Bashar, R. S. Tipu, A. Kabir Shawon, N. Sakib, M. A. Amin, and M. K. Islam, “Use of spontaneous blinking for application in human authentication,” Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, vol. 23, pp. 903-910, 2020

work page 2020
[8]

Blink: A Fully Automated Unsuper- vised Algorithm for Eye-Blink Detection in EEG Signals,

M. Agarwal and R. Sivakumar, “Blink: A Fully Automated Unsuper- vised Algorithm for Eye-Blink Detection in EEG Signals,” In 2019 57th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), Monticello, IL, USA, 2019, pp. 1113-1121. doi: 10.1109/ALLERTON.2019.8919795

work page arXiv 2019

Show all 22 references

[9]

Unsupervised eye blink artifact detection from EEG with Gaussian mixture model,

J. Cao, L. Chen, D. Hu, F. Dong, T. Jiang, W. Gao, and F. Gao, “Unsupervised eye blink artifact detection from EEG with Gaussian mixture model,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 2895-2905, 2021

2021
[10]

Multidimensional feature optimization based eye blink detection under epileptiform discharges,

M. Wang, J. Wang, X. Cui, T. Wang, T. Jiang, F. Gao, and J. Cao, “Multidimensional feature optimization based eye blink detection under epileptiform discharges,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 30, pp. 905-914, 2022

2022
[11]

RT-Blink: A Method Toward Real-Time Blink Detection From Single Frontal EEG Signal,

Y . Zhang, X. Zheng, W. Xu, and H. Liu, “RT-Blink: A Method Toward Real-Time Blink Detection From Single Frontal EEG Signal,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 2794-2802, 2023. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2022.3232176

2023
[12]

1D convolutional neural network approach to classify voluntary eye blinks in EEG signals for BCI applications,

M. Lo Giudice, G. Varone, C. Ieracitano, N. Mammone, A. R. Bruna, V . Tomaselli, and F. C. Morabito, “1D convolutional neural network approach to classify voluntary eye blinks in EEG signals for BCI applications,” In 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCN...

2020
[13]

EEGANet: Removal of ocular artifacts from the EEG signal using generative adver- sarial networks,

P. Sawangjai, M. Trakulruangroj, C. Boonnag, M. Piriyajitakonkij, R. K. Tripathy, T. Sudhawiyangkul, and T. Wilaiprasitporn, “EEGANet: Removal of ocular artifacts from the EEG signal using generative adver- sarial networks,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, v...

2022
[14]

LSTM based brain-machine interface tool for text generation through eyes blink- ing detection,

A. F. Reyes, E. C. Camacho, M. Armando, and J. M. Calderon, “LSTM based brain-machine interface tool for text generation through eyes blink- ing detection,” In 2021 IEEE 18th Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), pp. 1-6, 2021

2021
[15]

CNN-based removal of eye blink artifacts from single-channel EEG,

J. Jurczak, M. Kania, and K. Domino, “CNN-based removal of eye blink artifacts from single-channel EEG,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 17, p. 6297, 2022

2022
[16]

EEG multipurpose eye blink detector using convolutional neural network,

A. F. Iaquinta, A. C. S. Silva, A. F. Junior, J. M. de Toledo, and G. V . von Atzingen, “EEG multipurpose eye blink detector using convolutional neural network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14235, 2021

2021 arXiv
[17]

1D-ResCNN: One-dimensional residual convolutional neural network for EEG signal denoising,

J. Sun, X. Zhang, and H. Wang, “1D-ResCNN: One-dimensional residual convolutional neural network for EEG signal denoising,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1976-1985, 2020

1976
[18]

Online V oluntary Eye Blink Detection using Electrooculogram,

M. Nakanishi, Y . Mitsukura, Y . Wang, Y .-T. Wang, and T.-P. Jung, “Online V oluntary Eye Blink Detection using Electrooculogram,” IEICE Proceeding Series, vol. 1, 2012. doi: 10.15248/proc.1.114

2012 doi
[19]

Extended ICA and M-CSP with BiLSTM Towards Improved Classification of EEG Signals,

A. U. Rahman, A. Tubaishat, F. Al-Obeidat, Z. Halim, M. Tahir, and F. Qayum, “Extended ICA and M-CSP with BiLSTM Towards Improved Classification of EEG Signals,” Soft Computing, pp. 1-12, 2022. 7 (a) LSTM LSTMBiLSTMBiLSTMGRU GRUCNN-STCNN-STCNN-DWCNN-DWCNN-RNNCNN-RNNTCN-DWTCN-D...

2022
[20]

A Temporal Convolution Network Solution for EEG Motor Imagery Classification,

N. Lu, T. Yin, and X. Jing, “A Temporal Convolution Network Solution for EEG Motor Imagery Classification,” Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE), pp. 796-799, 2019. doi: 10.1109/BIBE.2019.00148

2019
[21]

MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applications,

A. G. Howard, M. Zhu, B. Chen, D. Kalenichenko, W. Wang, T. Weyand, M. Andreetto, and H. Adam, “MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 2017

2017 arXiv
[22]

Patches Are All You Need?,

A. Trockman and J. Z. Kolter, “Patches Are All You Need?,” In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. VII. APPENDIX A. CNN-DW Results 8 (a) Filter Size: 5 (b) Filter Size: 11 (c) Filter Size: 15 (d) Filter Size: 5 (e) Filter Size: 11 (f) Filter Size: 15 (g)...

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Development of Evaluation System of Student’s Concentration in Active Learning,

K. Yajima, S. Takahashi, Y . Takeichi, and J. Sato, “Development of Evaluation System of Student’s Concentration in Active Learning,” In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Engineering, Applied Sciences, and Technology (ICEAST), Phuket, Thailand, 2018, pp. 1-4. doi: 10.1109/ICEAST.2018.8434492

work page arXiv 2018

[2] [2]

What Does Eye-Blink Rate Variability Dynamics Tell Us About Cognitive Performance,

R. Paprocki and A. Lenskiy, “What Does Eye-Blink Rate Variability Dynamics Tell Us About Cognitive Performance,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 11, 2017. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00620

work page arXiv 2017

[3] [3]

EEGLAB: an Open Source Toolbox for Analysis of Single-Trial EEG Dynamics, Including Independent Component Analysis,

A. Delorme and S. Makeig, “EEGLAB: an Open Source Toolbox for Analysis of Single-Trial EEG Dynamics, Including Independent Component Analysis,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 9-21, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009

doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 2004

[4] [4]

Automatic spike detection based on adap- tive template matching for extracellular neural recordings,

S. Kim and J. McNames, “Automatic spike detection based on adap- tive template matching for extracellular neural recordings,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 165, no. 2, pp. 165-174, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.05.033

work page doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.05.033 2007

[5] [5]

Extracting Blink Rate Variability from EEG Signals,

R. Paprocki, T. Gebrehiwot, M. Gradinscak, and A. Lenskiy, “Extracting Blink Rate Variability from EEG Signals,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing, vol. 6, no. 3, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

BLINKER: Automated Extraction of Ocular Indices from EEG Enabling Large-Scale Analysis,

K. Kleifges, N. Bigdely-Shamlo, S. E. Kerick, and K. A. Robbins, “BLINKER: Automated Extraction of Ocular Indices from EEG Enabling Large-Scale Analysis,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 11, 2017. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00012

arXiv 2017

[7] [7]

Use of spontaneous blinking for application in human authentication,

A. Jalilifard, D. Chen, A. K. Mutasim, M. R. Bashar, R. S. Tipu, A. Kabir Shawon, N. Sakib, M. A. Amin, and M. K. Islam, “Use of spontaneous blinking for application in human authentication,” Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, vol. 23, pp. 903-910, 2020

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Blink: A Fully Automated Unsuper- vised Algorithm for Eye-Blink Detection in EEG Signals,

M. Agarwal and R. Sivakumar, “Blink: A Fully Automated Unsuper- vised Algorithm for Eye-Blink Detection in EEG Signals,” In 2019 57th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), Monticello, IL, USA, 2019, pp. 1113-1121. doi: 10.1109/ALLERTON.2019.8919795

work page arXiv 2019