Fast Recognition of BCI-Inefficient Users Using Physiological Features from EEG Signals: A Screening Study of Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor imagery (MI) based brain-computer interface (BCI) has been developed as an alternative therapy for stroke rehabilitation. However, experimental evidence demonstrates that a significant portion (10% to 50%) of subjects are BCI-illiterate users (accuracy less than 70%). Thus, predicting BCI performance prior to clinical BCI usage would facilitate the selection of suitable end-users and improve the efficiency of stroke rehabilitation. In the current study, we proposed two physiological variables, i.e., laterality index (LI) and cortical activation strength (CAS), to predict MI-BCI performance. Twenty-four stroke patients and ten healthy subjects were recruited for this study. Each subject was required to perform two blocks of left- and right-hand MI tasks. Linear regression analyses were performed between the BCI accuracies and two physiological predictors. Here, the predictors were calculated from the electroencephalography (EEG) signals during paretic hand MI tasks (5 trials; approximately one minute). LI values exhibited a statistically significant correlation with two-class BCI (left vs. right) performance (r=-0.732, p<0.001), and CAS values exhibited a statistically significant correlation with brain-switch BCI (task vs. idle) performance (r=0.641, p<0.001). Furthermore, the BCI-illiterate users were successfully recognized with a sensitivity of 88.2% and a specificity of 85.7% in the two-class BCI. The brain-switch BCI achieved a sensitivity of 100.0% and a specificity of 87.5% in the discrimination of BCI-illiterate users. These results demonstrated that the proposed BCI predictors were promising to promote the BCI usage in stroke rehabilitation and contribute to a better understanding of the BCI-illiteracy phenomenon in stroke patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".