Investigating the addition of singing imagery as a control task in motor imagery BCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active BCIs often rely on the performance of various imagery tasks that can be detected and decoded as commands for operating an external device. An increase in the number of these commands would significantly improve the functionality of the system and, as a result, quality of life for the user. This study focuses on augmenting the practicality and performance of such systems by investigating the mental task of singing imagery. Singing imagery is the simple act of imagining singing a song in your head and is a common experience for most people. However, despite its intuitive and straightforward nature, the potential of singing imagery for improving the performance of active BCIs or increasing their number of commands has not been fully investigated.In this study, along with various binary analyses, singing imagery is combined with a set of conventional tasks in BCI design (i.e., the motor imagery of large body parts like hands, feet, and tongue) for 4-class, 5-class (adding a “rest” state), and ultimately 6-class scenarios to evaluate the possibilities of enhancing the active BCI systems. Incorporating a singing imagery task in the 4 and 5-class combinations yielded up to 6.6% and 6.7% improvements in classification accuracy for the two cases, respectively. Furthermore, for the 6-class scenario, accuracies as high as 49.8%, which is well above the chance level of 16.7%, were achieved.The preliminary results, obtained from five participants, suggested that singing imagery could be a viable option for improving the classification accuracy or increasing the number of commands.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".