Towards a system-paced near-infrared spectroscopy brain–computer interface: differentiating prefrontal activity due to mental arithmetic and mental singing from the no-control state
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) has recently been investigated as a non-invasive brain-computer interface (BCI) for individuals with severe motor impairments. For the most part, previous research has investigated the development of NIRS-BCIs operating under synchronous control paradigms, which require the user to exert conscious control over their mental activity whenever the system is vigilant. Though functional, this is mentally demanding and an unnatural way to communicate. An attractive alternative to the synchronous control paradigm is system-paced control, in which users are required to consciously modify their brain activity only when they wish to affect the BCI output, and can remain in a more natural, 'no-control' state at all other times. In this study, we investigated the feasibility of a system-paced NIRS-BCI with one intentional control (IC) state corresponding to the performance of either mental arithmetic or mental singing. In particular, this involved determining if these tasks could be distinguished, individually, from the unconstrained 'no-control' state. Deploying a dual-wavelength frequency domain near-infrared spectrometer, we interrogated nine sites around the frontopolar locations (International 10-20 System) while eight able-bodied adults performed mental arithmetic and mental singing to answer multiple-choice questions within a system-paced paradigm. With a linear classifier trained on a six-dimensional feature set, an overall classification accuracy of 71.2% across participants was achieved for the mental arithmetic versus no-control classification problem. While the mental singing versus no-control classification was less successful across participants (62.7% on average), four participants did attain accuracies well in excess of chance, three of which were above 70%. Analyses were performed offline. Collectively, these results are encouraging, and demonstrate the potential of a system-paced NIRS-BCI with one IC state corresponding to either mental arithmetic or mental singing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".