Classification of Movement Preparation Between Attended and Distracted Self-Paced Motor Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Brain-computer interface (BCI) systems aim to control external devices by using brain signals. The performance of these systems is influenced by the user's mental state, such as attention. In this study, we classified two attention states to a target task (attended and distracted task level) while attention to the task is altered by one of three types of distractors. METHODS: A total of 27 participants were allocated into three experimental groups and exposed to one type of distractor. An attended condition that was the same across the three groups comprised only the main task execution (self-paced dorsiflexion) while the distracted condition was concurrent execution of the main task and an oddball task (dual-task condition). Electroencephalography signals were recorded from 28 electrodes to classify the two attention states of attended or distracted task conditions by extracting temporal and spectral features. RESULTS: The results showed that the ensemble classification accuracy using the combination of temporal and spectral features (spectro-temporal features, 82.3 ± 2.7%) was greater than using temporal (69 ± 2.2%) and spectral (80.3 ± 2.6%) features separately. The classification accuracy was computed using a combination of different channel locations, and it was demonstrated that a combination of parietal and centrally located channels was superior for classification of two attention states during movement preparation (parietal channels: 84.6 ± 1.3%, central and parietal channels: 87.2 ± 1.5%). CONCLUSION: It is possible to monitor the users' attention to the task for different types of distractors. SIGNIFICANCE: It has implications for online BCI systems where the requirement is for high accuracy of intention detection.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".