MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309609823 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2022.1007136

EEG hybrid brain-computer interfaces: A scoping review applying an existing hybrid-BCI taxonomy and considerations for pediatric applications

2022· review· en· W4309609823 on OpenAlexafffund
Matheus G. Mussi, Kim Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital FoundationAlberta InnovatesGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceComputer scienceInterface (matter)Human–computer interactionElectroencephalographyPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most hybrid brain-computer interfaces (hBCI) aim at improving the performance of single-input BCI. Many combinations are possible to configure an hBCI, such as using multiple brain input signals, different stimuli or more than one input system. Multiple studies have been done since 2010 where such interfaces have been tested and analyzed. Results and conclusions are promising but little has been discussed as to what is the best approach for the pediatric population, should they use hBCI as an assistive technology. Children might face greater challenges when using BCI and might benefit from less complex interfaces. Hence, in this scoping review we included 42 papers that developed hBCI systems for the purpose of control of assistive devices or communication software, and we analyzed them through the lenses of potential use in clinical settings and for children. We extracted taxonomic categories proposed in previous studies to describe the types of interfaces that have been developed. We also proposed interface characteristics that could be observed in different hBCI, such as type of target, number of targets and number of steps before selection. Then, we discussed how each of the extracted characteristics could influence the overall complexity of the system and what might be the best options for applications for children. Effectiveness and efficiency were also collected and included in the analysis. We concluded that the least complex hBCI interfaces might involve having a brain inputs and an external input, with a sequential role of operation, and visual stimuli. Those interfaces might also use a minimal number of targets of the strobic type, with one or two steps before the final selection. We hope this review can be used as a guideline for future hBCI developments and as an incentive to the design of interfaces that can also serve children who have motor impairments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0270.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207