Toward an Open-Ended BCI: A User-Centered Coadaptive Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) allow users to control a device by interpreting their brain activity. For simplicity, these devices are designed to be operated by purposefully modulating specific predetermined neurophysiological signals, such as the sensorimotor rhythm. However, the ability to modulate a given neurophysiological signal is highly variable across individuals, contributing to the inconsistent performance of BCIs for different users. These differences suggest that individuals who experience poor BCI performance with one class of brain signals might have good results with another. In order to take advantage of individual abilities as they relate to BCI control, we need to move beyond the current approaches. In this letter, we explore a new BCI design aimed at a more individualized and user-focused experience, which we call open-ended BCI. Individual users were given the freedom to discover their own mental strategies as opposed to being trained to modulate a given brain signal. They then underwent multiple coadaptive training sessions with the BCI. Our first open-ended BCI performed similarly to comparable BCIs while accommodating a wider variety of mental strategies without a priori knowledge of the specific brain signals any individual might use. Post hoc analysis revealed individual differences in terms of which sensory modality yielded optimal performance. We found a large and significant effect of individual differences in background training and expertise, such as in musical training, on BCI performance. Future research should be focused on finding more generalized solutions to user training and brain state decoding methods to fully utilize the abilities of different individuals in an open-ended BCI. Accounting for each individual's areas of expertise could have important implications on BCI training and BCI application design.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".