Improving bit rate in an auditory BCI: Exploiting error-related potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The error-related potential (ErrP) can inform the correction of brain-computer interface (BCI) mistakes, but it has thus far been incorporated only into visual BCIs, with mixed success. Given that ErrPs are thought to have higher impact when BCI accuracy is relatively low, we sought to identify the aurally evoked ErrP and investigate its auto-corrective value in auditory BCIs, which typically yield lower accuracies than visual BCIs. We implemented an auditory P300 BCI with four selectable items. Each of nine typically developed participants attempted to spell letter sequences on two separate days. Erroneous feedback was detected by (i) making use of the ErrP, (ii) assessing BCI selection confidence, and (iii) combining these two pieces of information into a hybrid detector. ErrPs were detected with an average cross-validation area under the curve of 0.946. Simulated automatic correction by reverting to the second-ranked letter improved participant-wise information transfer rate by 2.3 bits/minute when errors were detected by the hybrid method. The results suggest ErrP-based error correction can be used to make a substantial improvement in the performance of auditory BCIs.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".