Development of a ternary hybrid fNIRS-EEG brain–computer interface based on imagined speech
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing interest in developing intuitive brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) to differentiate intuitive mental tasks such as imagined speech. Both electroencephalography (EEG) and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) have been used for this purpose. However, the classification accuracy and number of commands in such BCIs have been limited. The use of multi-modal BCIs to address these issues has been proposed for some common BCI tasks, but not for imagined speech. Here, we propose a multi-class hybrid fNIRS-EEG BCI based on imagined speech. Eleven participants performed multiple iterations of three tasks: mentally repeating ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for 15 s or an equivalent duration of unconstrained rest. We achieved an average ternary classification accuracy of 70.45 ± 19.19% which is significantly better than that attained with each modality alone (p < 0.05). Our findings suggest that concurrent measurements of EEG and fNIRS can improve classification accuracy of BCIs based on imagined speech.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it