MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144622899 · doi:10.1109/iembs.1997.757005

Development of brain-computer interface: preliminary results

2002· article· en· W2144622899 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark J. Polak, A. Kostov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceComputer scienceInterface (matter)Human–computer interactionOperating systemElectroencephalographyNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reports on the development of an experimental setup and initial results for the evaluation of electronencephalogram (EEG) signals for control and communication. In our experiments, we recorded and analyzed surface EEG signals above sensory-motor areas, while the subjects were attempting to use only mental activities to modulate their EEG signals, resulting in desired movements of an animated object on the feedback computer screen. To discover possible communication channels based on EEG signals, we asked our subjects to determine which mental activity produced reproducible control actions. We calculated the power spectral density (PSD) of the recorded EEG signals and used sensory-motor rhythm (SMR) as the feedback-generating variable, i.e. the object's movement direction and speed depended on the integrated PSD in the SMR range. In our initial experiments with three subjects, during the first session all three demonstrated the ability to determine which mental activity resulted in the desired movements. Off-line analysis showed that 60% classification accuracy can be achieved using a linear classifier on a subject with only two previous training sessions. These results are very encouraging and provide a good basis for the development of a direct brain-computer interface using cognitively modulated EEG signals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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