↓ Skip to main content

Towards Zero Training for Brain-Computer Interfacing

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
217 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
249 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
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.
Title
Towards Zero Training for Brain-Computer Interfacing
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2008
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0002967
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Krauledat, Michael Tangermann, Benjamin Blankertz, Klaus-Robert Müller

Abstract

Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals are highly subject-specific and vary considerably even between recording sessions of the same user within the same experimental paradigm. This challenges a stable operation of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) systems. The classical approach is to train users by neurofeedback to produce fixed stereotypical patterns of brain activity. In the machine learning approach, a widely adapted method for dealing with those variances is to record a so called calibration measurement on the beginning of each session in order to optimize spatial filters and classifiers specifically for each subject and each day. This adaptation of the system to the individual brain signature of each user relieves from the need of extensive user training. In this paper we suggest a new method that overcomes the requirement of these time-consuming calibration recordings for long-term BCI users. The method takes advantage of knowledge collected in previous sessions: By a novel technique, prototypical spatial filters are determined which have better generalization properties compared to single-session filters. In particular, they can be used in follow-up sessions without the need to recalibrate the system. This way the calibration periods can be dramatically shortened or even completely omitted for these 'experienced' BCI users. The feasibility of our novel approach is demonstrated with a series of online BCI experiments. Although performed without any calibration measurement at all, no loss of classification performance was observed.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Germany 4 2%
Netherlands 3 1%
Australia 3 1%
Japan 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 220 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 25%
Researcher 43 17%
Student > Master 34 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Student > Bachelor 16 6%
Other 56 22%
Unknown 21 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 79 32%
Computer Science 59 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 8%
Neuroscience 17 7%
Psychology 17 7%
Other 28 11%
Unknown 28 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 November 2012.
All research outputs
#18,320,524
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#153,897
of 193,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,776
of 82,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#414
of 441 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 82,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 441 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.