MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772922908 · doi:10.1109/smc.2017.8122954

Assistive technology design and preliminary testing of a robot platform based on movement intention using low-cost brain computer interface

2017· article· en· W2772922908 on OpenAlexaff
Isao Sakamaki, Camilo Ernesto Perafan del Campo, Sandra A. Wiebe, Mahdi Tavakoli, Kim Adams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceMotor imageryElectroencephalographyInterface (matter)Computer sciencePerceptionCognitionProcess (computing)RobotMovement (music)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process through which children learn about the world and develop perceptual, cognitive and motor skills relies heavily on object exploration in their physical world. New types of assistive technology that enable children with impairments to interact with their environment have emerged in recent years, and they could be beneficial for children's cognitive and perceptual skills development. Many studies have reported on brain computer interface (BCI) research. However, a conventional electroencephalography (EEG) system is generally bulky and expensive. It also requires special equipment and technical expertise to operate successfully. In this study, a compact low-cost EEG system was used to detect signals related to movement intention and control a mobile robot control. EEG signals of three non-disabled adults were acquired by the BCI system and the movement intention was classified during physical movement and motor imagery. The average classification accuracies achieved during testing were 56.4% for the motor imagery and 72.7% for the physical movement. The results show moderate classification accuracy for the motor imagery; however, the classification accuracy for the physical movement was high for all the subjects. Even though further improvement of the system is still needed, the experimental results demonstrated the feasibility of a BCI-based robotic system that is affordable and accessible for many people including children with disabilities.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207