EEG hybrid brain-computer interfaces: A scoping review applying an existing hybrid-BCI taxonomy and considerations for pediatric applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".