MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014120511 · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ab85b2

Simultaneous induction of SSMVEP and SMR Using a Gaiting video stimulus: a novel hybrid brain-computer interface

2019· article· en· W3014120511 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Zhang, Guanghua Xu, Aravind Ravi, Sarah Pearce, Ning Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceSensorimotor rhythmStimulus (psychology)ElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceSensory systemMirror neuronFlickerRhythmComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We proposed a novel visual stimulus for brain-computer interface. The stimulus is in the form gaiting sequence of a human. The hypothesis is that observing such a visual stimulus would simultaneously induce 1) steady-state motion visual evoked potential (SSMVEP) in the occipital area, similarly to an SSVEP stimulus; and 2) sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) in the primary sensorimotor area, because such action observation (AO) could activate the mirror neuron system. Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) was used to detect SSMVEP from occipital EEG, and event-related spectral perturbations (ERSP) were used to identify SMR in the EEG from the sensorimotor area. The results showed that the proposed visual gaiting stimulus-induced SSMVEP, with classification accuracies of 88.9 $\pm$ 12.0% in a four-class scenario. More importantly, it induced clear and sustained event-related desynchronization/synchronization (ERD/ERS) in the EEG from the sensorimotor area, while no ERD/ERS in the sensorimotor area could be observed when the other two SSVEP stimuli were used. Further, for participants with sufficiently clear SSMVEP pattern (classification accuracy > 85%), the ERD index values in mu-beta band induced by the proposed gaiting stimulus were statistically different from that of the other two types of stimulus. Therefore, a novel BCI based on the proposed stimulus has potential in neurorehabilitation applications because it simultaneously has the high accuracy of an SSMVEP (~90% accuracy in a four-class setup) and the ability to activate sensorimotor cortex. And such potential will be further explored in future studies.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207