MModels & experiments
Three models, one protocol, no results yet.
Each card carries the same fields whether or not the answer is flattering. All three are planned: nothing has been trained, and no metric on this page is filled in.
01Model card
Classical baseline
v0 · plannedPlannedReference point for every other model. Spatial filtering followed by a linear classifier, on the full montage and on each reduced configuration.
- Inputs
- Band-pass filtered epochs. Channel set varies by condition. Window length to be fixed at pre-registration.
- Architecture
- Spatial filtering (CSP-family) into a linear discriminant classifier.
- Training data
- Public EEG/EMG datasets, not yet selected.
- Evaluation
- Subject-dependent and subject-independent splits reported separately.
- Ablations
- Channel count sweep; EMG suppressed versus retained.
- Limitations
- Linear methods set a floor, not a ceiling. A weak baseline would make every later model look better than it is, so this one is tuned honestly.
Reproducibility
Not yetCode — with the manuscript
02Model card
Convolutional decoder
v0 · plannedPlannedLearns spatial and temporal filters directly from the epoch rather than relying on hand-designed features.
- Inputs
- Raw or minimally filtered multichannel epochs.
- Architecture
- Compact convolutional network in the EEGNet/ShallowNet family. Exact configuration to be fixed before training.
- Training data
- Same datasets and splits as the classical baseline.
- Evaluation
- Identical protocol to the baseline so the comparison means something.
- Ablations
- Channel count sweep; with and without EMG-dominant components.
- Limitations
- Deep models on small EEG datasets overfit readily and are sensitive to preprocessing choices. Subject-independent results are the ones that will be believed.
Reproducibility
Not yetCode — with the manuscript
03Model card
Separated-stream fusion model
v0 · plannedPlannedThe model the study exists to test. Takes separated EEG-dominant and EMG-dominant streams as distinct inputs and learns to combine them, instead of treating one as noise in the other.
- Inputs
- Two streams produced by the separation stage, aligned in time.
- Architecture
- Per-stream encoders with a learned fusion stage. Encoder choice inherited from whichever single-stream model performs best.
- Training data
- Same datasets and splits as the other two models.
- Evaluation
- Compared against EEG-only, EMG-only and naive-combined at every channel configuration.
- Ablations
- Fusion removed; one stream zeroed at inference; separation quality degraded deliberately to test sensitivity.
- Limitations
- If separation leaks, the fusion model can appear to benefit from information the streams were supposed to isolate. Leakage checks are part of the protocol rather than an afterthought.
Reproducibility
Not yetCode — with the manuscript
Not yetNotebook — after analysis
EExperiments
exp-01-baselineFull-montage decoding reproduces published performance on the selected dataset within a reasonable margin.Full montage · Classical baseline · To be selectedPlanned
exp-02-reductionPerformance degrades monotonically as channels are removed, with a steeper fall below a small channel count.Channel sweep down to ear-proximal subset · All three · To be selectedPlanned
exp-03-separationModelling separated EEG and EMG streams jointly outperforms suppressing EMG, and the gap widens as the array shrinks.Ear-proximal subset · Separated-stream fusion · To be selectedPlanned
