↓ Skip to main content

Semantic Classical Conditioning and Brain-Computer Interface Control: Encoding of Affirmative and Negative Thinking

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
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
55 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
Semantic Classical Conditioning and Brain-Computer Interface Control: Encoding of Affirmative and Negative Thinking
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2013.00023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolin A. Ruf, Daniele De Massari, Adrian Furdea, Tamara Matuz, Chiara Fioravanti, Linda van der Heiden, Sebastian Halder, Niels Birbaumer

Abstract

The aim of the study was to investigate conditioned electroencephalography (EEG) responses to factually correct and incorrect statements in order to enable binary communication by means of a brain-computer interface (BCI). In two experiments with healthy participants true and false statements (serving as conditioned stimuli, CSs) were paired with two different tones which served as unconditioned stimuli (USs). The features of the USs were varied and tested for their effectiveness to elicit differentiable conditioned reactions (CRs). After acquisition of the CRs, these CRs to true and false statements were classified offline using a radial basis function kernel support vector machine. A mean single-trial classification accuracy of 50.5% was achieved for differentiating conditioned "yes" versus "no" thinking and mean accuracies of 65.4% for classification of "yes" and 68.8% for "no" thinking (both relative to baseline) were found using the best US. Analysis of the area under the curve of the conditioned EEG responses revealed significant differences between conditioned "yes" and "no" answers. Even though improvements are necessary, these first results indicate that the semantic conditioning paradigm could be a useful basis for further research regarding BCI communication in patients in the complete locked-in state.

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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Italy 1 2%
Hungary 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 49 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Neuroscience 8 15%
Computer Science 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 March 2013.
All research outputs
#14,913,921
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,086
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,301
of 288,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#123
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 288,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.