Towards Artificial Learning Companions for Mental Imagery-based Brain-Computer Interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental Imagery based Brain-Computer Interfaces (MI-BCI) enable their users to control an interface, e.g., a prosthesis, by performing mental imagery tasks only, such as imagining a right arm movement while their brain activity is measured and processed by the system. Designing and using a BCI requires users to learn how to produce different and stable patterns of brain activity for each of the mental imagery tasks. However, current training protocols do not enable every user to acquire the skills required to use BCIs. These training protocols are most likely one of the main reasons why BCIs remain not reliable enough for wider applications outside research laboratories. Learning companions have been shown to improve training in different disciplines, but they have barely been explored for BCIs so far. This article aims at investigating the potential benefits learning companions could bring to BCI training by improving the feedback, i.e., the information provided to the user, which is primordial to the learning process and yet have proven both theoretically and practically inadequate in BCI. This paper first presents the potentials of BCI and the limitations of current training approaches. Then, it reviews both the BCI and learning companion literature regarding three main characteristics of feedback: its appearance, its social and emotional components and its cognitive component. From these considerations, this paper draws some guidelines, identify open challenges and suggests potential solutions to design and use learning companions for 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".