MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164666430 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.120.030596

Can Children With Perinatal Stroke Use a Simple Brain Computer Interface?

2021· article· en· W3164666430 on OpenAlexaff
Zeanna Jadavji, Jack Zhang, Brett Paffrath, Ephrem Zewdie, Adam Kirton

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Brain–computer interfaceSimple (philosophy)Interface (matter)PediatricsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose: Perinatal stroke is the leading cause of hemiparetic cerebral palsy resulting in lifelong disability for millions of people worldwide. Options for motor rehabilitation are limited, especially for the most severely affected children. Brain computer interfaces (BCIs) sample brain activity to allow users to control external devices. Functional electrical stimulation enhances motor recovery after stroke, and BCI-activated functional electrical stimulation was recently shown to improve upper extremity function in adult stroke. We aimed to determine the ability of children with perinatal stroke to operate a simple BCI. Methods: Twenty-one children with magnetic resonance imaging–confirmed perinatal stroke (57% male, mean [SD] 13.5 [2.6] years, range 9–18) were compared with 24 typically developing controls (71% male, mean age [SD] 13.7 [3.7] years, range 6–18). Participants trained on a simple EEG-based BCI over 2 sessions (10 trials each) utilizing 2 different mental imagery strategies: (1) motor imagery (imagine opening and closing of hands) and (2) goal oriented (imagine effector object moving toward target) to complete 2 tasks: (1) drive a remote controlled car to a target and (2) move a computer cursor to a target. Primary outcome was Cohen Kappa with a score >0.40 suggesting BCI competence. Results: BCI performance was comparable between stroke and control participants. Mean scores were 0.39 (0.18) for stroke versus 0.42 (0.18) for controls (t[42]=0.478, P=0.94). No difference in performance between venous (M=0.45, SD=0.29) and arterial (M=0.34, SD=0.22) stroke (t[82]=1.89, P=0.090) was observed. No effect of task or strategy was observed in the stroke participants. Over 90% of stroke participants demonstrated competency on at least one of the 4 task-strategy combinations. Conclusions: Children with perinatal stroke can achieve proficiency in basic tasks using simple BCI systems. Future directions include exploration of BCI-functional electrical stimulation systems for rehabilitation for children with hemiparesis and other forms of cerebral palsy.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207