↓ Skip to main content

Perception and Cognition of Cues Used in Synchronous Brain–Computer Interfaces Modify Electroencephalographic Patterns of Control Tasks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
21 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.
Title
Perception and Cognition of Cues Used in Synchronous Brain–Computer Interfaces Modify Electroencephalographic Patterns of Control Tasks
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00636
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luz María Alonso-Valerdi, Francisco Sepulveda, Ricardo A. Ramírez-Mendoza

Abstract

A motor imagery (MI)-based brain-computer interface (BCI) is a system that enables humans to interact with their environment by translating their brain signals into control commands for a target device. In particular, synchronous BCI systems make use of cues to trigger the motor activity of interest. So far, it has been shown that electroencephalographic (EEG) patterns before and after cue onset can reveal the user cognitive state and enhance the discrimination of MI-related control tasks. However, there has been no detailed investigation of the nature of those EEG patterns. We, therefore, propose to study the cue effects on MI-related control tasks by selecting EEG patterns that best discriminate such control tasks, and analyzing where those patterns are coming from. The study was carried out using two methods: standard and all-embracing. The standard method was based on sources (recording sites, frequency bands, and time windows), where the modulation of EEG signals due to motor activity is typically detected. The all-embracing method included a wider variety of sources, where not only motor activity is reflected. The findings of this study showed that the classification accuracy (CA) of MI-related control tasks did not depend on the type of cue in use. However, EEG patterns that best differentiated those control tasks emerged from sources well defined by the perception and cognition of the cue in use. An implication of this study is the possibility of obtaining different control commands that could be detected with the same accuracy. Since different cues trigger control tasks that yield similar CAs, and those control tasks produce EEG patterns differentiated by the cue nature, this leads to accelerate the brain-computer communication by having a wider variety of detectable control commands. This is an important issue for Neuroergonomics research because neural activity could not only be used to monitor the human mental state as is typically done, but this activity might be also employed to control the system of interest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 19%
Student > Master 4 19%
Unspecified 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 4 19%
Unspecified 2 10%
Psychology 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#13,958,854
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,302
of 7,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,655
of 386,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#84
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 386,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.