MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117798368 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2007.4352840

Human Error in P300 Speller Paradigm for Brain-Computer Interface

2007· article· en· W2117798368 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Fazel-Rezai

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionInterface (matter)Speech recognitionHuman brainElectroencephalographyNeurosciencePsychologyParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A brain-computer interface (BCI) is a system that conveys messages and commands directly from the human brain to a computer. The BCI system described in this work is based on P300 speller BCI paradigm designed by Farwell and Donchin in 1988. It has been the most widely used and a benchmark in P300 BCI. In this paradigm, a 6 x 6 matrix of letters and numbers is displayed and subject focuses on a character while different rows and columns flash. The work presented in this paper is an attempt to improve the accuracy of P300 BCI systems by understanding a source of error in this paradigm. It is shown that adjacent rows and columns to the target ones play major role in the error. This can be attributed to human error that when the adjacent row or column to the target one flashes, it attracts subject's attention and creates the P300.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference proceedingsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207