↓ Skip to main content

Single Trial Predictors for Gating Motor-Imagery Brain-Computer Interfaces Based on Sensorimotor Rhythm and Visual Evoked Potentials

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2016
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

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Single Trial Predictors for Gating Motor-Imagery Brain-Computer Interfaces Based on Sensorimotor Rhythm and Visual Evoked Potentials
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00164
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Geronimo, Mst Kamrunnahar, Steven J. Schiff

Abstract

For brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) that utilize visual cues to direct the user, the neural signals extracted by the computer are representative of ongoing processes, visual evoked responses, and voluntary modulation. We proposed to use three brain signatures for predicting success on a single trial of a BCI task. The first two features, the amplitude and phase of the pre-trial mu amplitude, were chosen as a correlate for cortical excitability. The remaining feature, related to the visually evoked response to the cue, served as a possible measure of fixation and attention to the task. Of these three features, mu rhythm amplitude over the central electrodes at the time of cue presentation and to a lesser extent the single trial visual evoked response were correlated with the success on the subsequent imagery task. Despite the potential for gating trials using these features, an offline gating simulation was limited in its ability to produce an increase in device throughput. This discrepancy highlights a distinction between the identification of predictive features, and the use of this knowledge in an online BCI. Using such a system, we cannot assume that the user will respond similarly when faced with a scenario where feedback is altered by trials that are gated on a regular basis. The results of this study suggest the possibility of using individualized, pre-task neural signatures for personalized, and asynchronous (self-paced) BCI applications, although these effects need to be quantified in a real-time adaptive scenario in a future study.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 7 18%
Neuroscience 7 18%
Psychology 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 34%
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 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,740,207
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,688
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,920
of 312,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#100
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 11,542 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 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 312,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.