↓ Skip to main content

Uniform and Non-uniform Perturbations in Brain-Machine Interface Task Elicit Similar Neural Strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Uniform and Non-uniform Perturbations in Brain-Machine Interface Task Elicit Similar Neural Strategies
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2016.00070
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Armenta Salas, Stephen I. Helms Tillery

Abstract

The neural mechanisms that take place during learning and adaptation can be directly probed with brain-machine interfaces (BMIs). We developed a BMI controlled paradigm that enabled us to enforce learning by introducing perturbations which changed the relationship between neural activity and the BMI's output. We introduced a uniform perturbation to the system, through a visuomotor rotation (VMR), and a non-uniform perturbation, through a decorrelation task. The controller in the VMR was essentially unchanged, but produced an output rotated at 30° from the neurally specified output. The controller in the decorrelation trials decoupled the activity of neurons that were highly correlated in the BMI task by selectively forcing the preferred directions of these cell pairs to be orthogonal. We report that movement errors were larger in the decorrelation task, and subjects needed more trials to restore performance back to baseline. During learning, we measured decreasing trends in preferred direction changes and cross-correlation coefficients regardless of task type. Conversely, final adaptations in neural tunings were dependent on the type controller used (VMR or decorrelation). These results hint to the similar process the neural population might engage while adapting to new tasks, and how, through a global process, the neural system can arrive to individual solutions.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 42%
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 16%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 7 37%
Neuroscience 4 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 1 5%
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 10 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,857,703
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#890
of 1,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,767
of 342,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 342,858 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.