Online detection of error-related potentials in multi-class cognitive task-based BCIs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One method for improving the accuracy and hence the rate of communication of a brain–computer interface (BCI) is to automatically correct erroneous classifications by exploiting error-related potentials (ErrPs). The merit of such a correction scheme has been demonstrated in both active (e.g. motor imagery) and reactive (e.g. P300) BCIs. Here, we investigated the effect of ErrP-guided error correction in a three-class, active BCI based on cognitive rather than motor imagery tasks using electroencephalography (EEG). Ten able-bodied adults participated in three sessions of data collection. For each participant, a ternary BCI differentiated among idle state and two personally selected cognitive tasks (e.g. mental arithmetic, counting, word generation, and figure rotation). Real-time feedback of the BCI decision was displayed to the participant following each task. EEG data after feedback onset were used to detect ErrPs and correct the BCI’s output in the case of detected errors. ErrP-based error correction modestly but significantly improved the average online task classification accuracy (+7%) as well as the information transfer rate (+0.9 bits/min) of the ternary BCI across participants. Our findings support further study of ErrPs in active BCIs based on cognitive tasks.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".