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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effect of biased feedback on motor imagery learning in BCI-teleoperation system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00052 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maryam Alimardani, Shuichi Nishio, Hiroshi Ishiguro |
| Abstract |
Feedback design is an important issue in motor imagery BCI systems. Regardless, to date it has not been reported how feedback presentation can optimize co-adaptation between a human brain and such systems. This paper assesses the effect of realistic visual feedback on users' BCI performance and motor imagery skills. We previously developed a tele-operation system for a pair of humanlike robotic hands and showed that BCI control of such hands along with first-person perspective visual feedback of movements can arouse a sense of embodiment in the operators. In the first stage of this study, we found that the intensity of this ownership illusion was associated with feedback presentation and subjects' performance during BCI motion control. In the second stage, we probed the effect of positive and negative feedback bias on subjects' BCI performance and motor imagery skills. Although the subject specific classifier, which was set up at the beginning of experiment, detected no significant change in the subjects' online performance, evaluation of brain activity patterns revealed that subjects' self-regulation of motor imagery features improved due to a positive bias of feedback and a possible occurrence of ownership illusion. Our findings suggest that in general training protocols for BCIs, manipulation of feedback can play an important role in the optimization of subjects' motor imagery skills. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 19% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 20 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 16 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 14% |
| Psychology | 12 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 22% |
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 11 December 2014.
All research outputs
#13,710,226
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#786
of 1,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,952
of 228,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#31
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 228,030 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 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.