Correlates of Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Brain–Computer Interface Accuracy in a Multi-Class Personalization Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) provide individuals with a means of interacting with a computer using only neural activity. To date, the majority of near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) BCIs have used prescribed tasks to achieve binary control. The goals of this study were to evaluate the possibility of using a personalized approach to establish control of a two-, three-, four-, and five-class NIRS-BCI, and to explore how various user characteristics correlate to accuracy. Ten able-bodied participants were recruited for five data collection sessions. Participants performed six mental tasks and a personalized approach was used to select each individual's best discriminating subset of tasks. The average offline cross-validation accuracies achieved were 78, 61, 47, and 37% for the two-, three-, four-, and five-class problems, respectively. Most notably, all participants exceeded an accuracy of 70% for the two-class problem, and two participants exceeded an accuracy of 70% for the three-class problem. Additionally, accuracy was found to be strongly positively correlated (Pearson's) with perceived ease of session (ρ = 0.653), ease of concentration (ρ = 0.634), and enjoyment (ρ = 0.550), but strongly negatively correlated with verbal IQ (ρ = -0.749).
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".