Assessing Time-Resolved fNIRS for Brain-Computer Interface Applications of Mental Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are becoming increasingly popular as a tool to improve the quality of life of patients with disabilities. Recently, time-resolved functional near-infrared spectroscopy (TR-fNIRS) based BCIs are gaining traction because of their enhanced depth sensitivity leading to lower signal contamination from the extracerebral layers. This study presents the first account of TR-fNIRS based BCI for "mental communication" on healthy participants. Twenty-one (21) participants were recruited and were repeatedly asked a series of questions where they were instructed to imagine playing tennis for "yes" and to stay relaxed for "no." The change in the mean time-of-flight of photons was used to calculate the change in concentrations of oxy- and deoxyhemoglobin since it provides a good compromise between depth sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio. Features were extracted from the average oxyhemoglobin signals to classify them as "yes" or "no" responses. Linear-discriminant analysis (LDA) and support vector machine (SVM) classifiers were used to classify the responses using the leave-one-out cross-validation method. The overall accuracies achieved for all participants were 75% and 76%, using LDA and SVM, respectively. The results also reveal that there is no significant difference in accuracy between questions. In addition, physiological parameters [heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP)] were recorded on seven of the 21 participants during motor imagery (MI) and rest to investigate changes in these parameters between conditions. No significant difference in these parameters was found between conditions. These findings suggest that TR-fNIRS could be suitable as a BCI for patients with brain injuries.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".