MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546901344 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00530

The Berlin Brain-Computer Interface: Progress Beyond Communication and Control

2016· review· en· W2546901344 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Benjamin Blankertz, Laura Acqualagna, Sven Dähne, Stefan Haufe, Matthias Schultze-Kraft, Irene Sturm, Marija Ušćumlić, Markus Wenzel, Gabriel Curio, Klaus‐Robert Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeBanting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of TorontoNational Research Foundation of KoreaBerlin School of Mind and BrainBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Research FoundationEuropean Commission
KeywordsNeurocognitiveBrain–computer interfaceComputer scienceInterface (matter)Human–computer interactionMaturity (psychological)Perspective (graphical)Control (management)Cognitive scienceData scienceCognitionArtificial intelligencePsychologyNeuroscienceElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The combined effect of fundamental results about neurocognitive processes and advancements in decoding mental states from ongoing brain signals has brought forth a whole range of potential neurotechnological applications. In this article, we review our developments in this area and put them into perspective. These examples cover a wide range of maturity levels with respect to their applicability. While we assume we are still a long way away from integrating Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) technology in general interaction with computers, or from implementing neurotechnological measures in safety-critical workplaces, results have already now been obtained involving a BCI as research tool. In this article, we discuss the reasons why, in some of the prospective application domains, considerable effort is still required to make the systems ready to deal with the full complexity of the real world.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations209
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207