MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015551713 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ab872c

Efficacy of low-cost wireless neurofeedback to modulate brain activity during motor imagery

2020· article· en· W3015551713 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNova Scotia Health Research Foundation
KeywordsNeurofeedbackMotor imageryNeuroscienceWirelessBrain–computer interfacePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceMedicineElectroencephalographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Motor imagery can be used as an adjunct to traditional stroke rehabilitation therapies for individuals who have hand and arm impairment resulting from their stroke. The provision of neurofeedback during motor imagery allows individuals to receive real time information regarding their motor imagery-related brain activity. However, the equipment required to administer this feedback is expensive and largely inaccessible to many of the individuals who could benefit from it. Available EEG-based technology provides an accessible, low-cost, wireless alternative to traditional neurofeedback methods, with the tradeoff of lower gain and channel count resulting in reduced signal quality. This study investigated the efficacy of this wireless technology for the provision of motor imagery-related neurofeedback. APPROACH: Twenty-eight healthy individuals participated in a 2-group, double-blinded study which involved imagining performing a unimanual button pressing task while receiving neurofeedback that is either a direct transform of their motor imagery-related brain activity (i.e., real) or is related to someone else's brain activity (i.e., sham). The change in amplitude of 15-30 Hz (beta) rhythmic brain activity elicited during the task blocks was calculated and analyzed across sessions and groups. MAIN RESULTS: We found that individuals who received real neurofeedback showed a statistically significant positive trajectory in modulating the amplitude of the beta rhythm across sessions, while those who received sham feedback showed a negative trajectory. Our results did not indicate a trend of increased lateralization across sessions, as has been shown in previous studies. SIGNIFICANCE: Our main findings replicated previous results with research-grade equipment indicating that there is potential for introducing this wireless technology for the provision of neurofeedback. Given the marginal longitudinal effect of neurofeedback in our study, further study is required to address the limitations associated with this technology before our protocol can be implemented in a clinical setting.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · 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