MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976887998 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00393

Toward a Hybrid Passive BCI for the Modulation of Sustained Attention Using EEG and fNIRS

2019· article· en· W2976887998 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander J. Karran, Théophile Demazure, Pierre‐Majorique Léger, Élise Labonté-LeMoyne, Sylvain Sénécal, Marc Frédette, Gilbert Babin

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceElectroencephalographyWorkloadTask (project management)Interface (matter)Computer scienceCountermeasureSpeech recognitionPsychologySimulationEngineeringNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report results of a study that utilises a BCI to drive an interactive interface countermeasure that allows users to self-regulate sustained attention while performing an ecologically valid, long-duration business logistics task. An engagement index derived from EEG signals was used to drive the BCI while fNIRS measured haemodynamic activity for the duration of the task. Participants (n=30) were split into three groups 1) no countermeasures (NOCM), 2) continuous countermeasures (CCM), and 3) event synchronised, level-dependent countermeasures (ECM). We hypothesised that the ability to self-regulate sustained attention through a neurofeedback mechanism would result in greater task engagement, decreased error rate and improved task performance. Data were analysed by wavelet coherence analysis, statistical analysis, performance metrics and self-assessed cognitive workload via RAW-TLX. We found that when the BCI was used to deliver continuous interface countermeasures (CCM), task performance was moderately enhanced in terms of total 14,785 (σ = 423) and estimated missed sales 7.46% (σ = 1.76) when compared to the NOCM 14,529 (σ = 510), 9.79% (σ = 2.75), and the ECM 14,180 (σ = 875), 9.62% (σ = 4.91) groups. An “actions per minute” (APM) metric was used to determine interface interaction activity which showed that overall the CCM and ECM groups had a higher APM of 3.460 (se =0.140) and 3.317 (se =0.139) respectively when compared with the NOCM group 2.65 (se =0.097). Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between ECM - NOCM and CCM - NOCM (p<0.001) groups, but no significant difference between the ECM - CCM groups. Analysis of the RAW-TLX scores showed that the CCM group had lowest total score 7.27 (σ = 3.1), when compared with the ECM 9.7 (σ = 3.3) and NOCM 9.2 (σ = 3.4) groups. No statistical difference was found between the RAW-TLX or the subscales, except for self-perceived performance (p <0.028) comparing the CCM and ECM groups. The results suggest that providing a means to self-regulate sustained attention has the potential to keep operators engaged over long periods, and moderately increase on-task performance while decreasing on-task error.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207