MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551117552 · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/13/6/066022

Towards psychologically adaptive brain–computer interfaces

2016· article· en· W2551117552 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Myrden, Tom Chau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceElectroencephalographyComputer scienceTask (project management)Classifier (UML)Mental stateSet (abstract data type)Cognitive psychologyArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Brain-computer interface (BCI) performance is sensitive to short-term changes in psychological states such as fatigue, frustration, and attention. This paper explores the design of a BCI that can adapt to these short-term changes. APPROACH: Eleven able-bodied individuals participated in a study during which they used a mental task-based EEG-BCI to play a simple maze navigation game while self-reporting their perceived levels of fatigue, frustration, and attention. In an offline analysis, a regression algorithm was trained to predict changes in these states, yielding Pearson correlation coefficients in excess of 0.45 between the self-reported and predicted states. Two means of fusing the resultant mental state predictions with mental task classification were investigated. First, single-trial mental state predictions were used to predict correct classification by the BCI during each trial. Second, an adaptive BCI was designed that retrained a new classifier for each testing sample using only those training samples for which predicted mental state was similar to that predicted for the current testing sample. MAIN RESULTS: Mental state-based prediction of BCI reliability exceeded chance levels. The adaptive BCI exhibited significant, but practically modest, increases in classification accuracy for five of 11 participants and no significant difference for the remaining six despite a smaller average training set size. SIGNIFICANCE: Collectively, these findings indicate that adaptation to psychological state may allow the design of more accurate 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 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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neural EngineeringSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207