Performance measurement for brain–computer or brain–machine interfaces: a tutorial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have the potential to be valuable clinical tools. However, the varied nature of BCIs, combined with the large number of laboratories participating in BCI research, makes uniform performance reporting difficult. To address this situation, we present a tutorial on performance measurement in BCI research. APPROACH: A workshop on this topic was held at the 2013 International BCI Meeting at Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific Grove, California. This paper contains the consensus opinion of the workshop members, refined through discussion in the following months and the input of authors who were unable to attend the workshop. MAIN RESULTS: Checklists for methods reporting were developed for both discrete and continuous BCIs. Relevant metrics are reviewed for different types of BCI research, with notes on their use to encourage uniform application between laboratories. SIGNIFICANCE: Graduate students and other researchers new to BCI research may find this tutorial a helpful introduction to performance measurement in the field.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it