Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) research community has acknowledged that researchers are experiencing difficulties when they try to compare the BCI techniques described in the literature. In response to this situation, the community has stressed the need for objective methods to compare BCI technologies. Suggested improvements have included the development and use of benchmark applications and standard data sets. However, as a young, multidisciplinary research field, the BCI community lacks a common vocabulary. As a result, this deficiency leads to poor intergroup communication, which hinders the development of the desired methods of comparison. One of the principle reasons for the lack of common vocabulary is the absence of a common functional model of a BCI System. This paper proposes a new functional model for BCI System design. The model supports many features that facilitate the comparison of BCI technologies with other BCI and non-BCI user interface technologies. From this model, taxonomy for BCI System design is developed. Together the model and taxonomy are considered a general framework for BCI System design. The representational power of the proposed framework was evaluated by applying it to a set of existing BCI technologies. The framework could effectively describe all of the BCI System designs tested.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".