↓ Skip to main content

Feedback for reinforcement learning based brain–machine interfaces using confidence metrics

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neural Engineering, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Feedback for reinforcement learning based brain–machine interfaces using confidence metrics
Published in
Journal of Neural Engineering, March 2017
DOI 10.1088/1741-2552/aa6317
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

For Brain-Machine Interfaces (BMI) to be used in activities of daily living by paralyzed individuals, the BMI should be as autonomous as possible. One of the challenges is how the feedback is extracted and utilized in the BMI. Our long-term goal is to create autonomous BMIs that can utilize an evaluative feedback from the brain to update the decoding algorithm and use it intelligently in order to adapt the decoder. In this study, we show how to extract the necessary evaluative feedback from a biologically realistic (synthetic) source, use both the quantity and the quality of the feedback, and how that feedback information can be incorporated into a reinforcement learning (RL) controller architecture to maximize its performance. Motivated by the perception-action-reward cycle (PARC) in the brain which links reward for cognitive decision making and goal-directed behavior, we used a reward-based RL architecture named Actor-Critic RL as the model. To deal with the complexity and non-stationarity of biological reward signals, we used a confidence metric which was used to indicate the degree of feedback accuracy. This confidence was added to the Actor's weight update equation in the RL controller architecture. If the confidence was high, the BMI decoder used this feedback to update its parameters. However, when the confidence was low, the BMI decoder ignored the feedback and did not update its parameters. In this work, we show how the overall performance of the BMI was improved by using a threshold close to the decision boundary to reject erroneous feedback. Additionally, we show the stability of the system improved when the feedback was used with a threshold. The result of this study is a step towards making BMIs autonomous. While our method is not fully autonomous, the results demonstrate that extensive training times necessary at the beginning of each BMI session can be significantly decreased. In our approach, decoder training time was only limited to 10 trials in the first BMI session. Subsequent sessions used previous session weights to initialize the decoder. We also present a method where the use of a threshold can be applied to any decoder with a feedback signal that is less than perfect so that erroneous feedback can be avoided and the stability of the system can be increased.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Professor 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 15 29%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Computer Science 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2021.
All research outputs
#10,157,651
of 31,346,776 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neural Engineering
#787
of 2,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,799
of 337,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neural Engineering
#13
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,346,776 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.