Brain–computer interfacing in disorders of consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent neuroimaging research has strikingly demonstrated the existence of covert awareness in some patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC). These findings have highlighted the potential for the development of simple brain-computer interfaces (BCI) as a diagnosis in behaviourally unresponsive patients. OBJECTIVES: This study here reviews current EEG-based BCIs that hold potential for assessing and eventually assisting patients with DoC. It highlights key areas for further development that might eventually make their application feasible in this challenging patient group. METHODS: The major types of BCIs proposed in the literature are considered, namely those based on the P3 potential, sensorimotor rhythms, steady state oscillations and slow cortical potentials. In each case, a brief overview of the relevant literature is provided and then their relative merits for BCI applications in DoC are considered. RESULTS: A range of BCI designs have been proposed and tested for enabling communication in fully conscious, paralysed patients. Although many of these have potential applicability for patients with DoC, they share some key challenges that need to be overcome, including limitations of stimulation modality, feedback, user training and consistency. CONCLUSION: Future work will need to address the technical and practical challenges facing reliable implementation at the patient's bedside.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".