Enhancing motor imagery detection efficacy using multisensory virtual reality priming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) have been developed to allow users to communicate with the external world by translating brain activity into control signals. Motor imagery (MI) has been a popular paradigm in BCI control where the user imagines movements of e.g., their left and right limbs and classifiers are then trained to detect such intent directly from electroencephalography (EEG) signals. For some users, however, it is difficult to elicit patterns in the EEG signal that can be detected with existing features and classifiers. As such, new user control strategies and training paradigms have been highly sought-after to help improve motor imagery performance. Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as one potential tool where improvements in user engagement and level of immersion have shown to improve BCI accuracy. Motor priming in VR, in turn, has shown to further enhance BCI accuracy. In this pilot study, we take the first steps to explore if multisensory VR motor priming, where haptic and olfactory stimuli are present, can improve motor imagery detection efficacy in terms of both improved accuracy and faster detection. Experiments with 10 participants equipped with a biosensor-embedded VR headset, an off-the-shelf scent diffusion device, and a haptic glove with force feedback showed that significant improvements in motor imagery detection could be achieved. Increased activity in the six common spatial pattern filters used were also observed and peak accuracy could be achieved with analysis windows that were 2 s shorter. Combined, the results suggest that multisensory motor priming prior to motor imagery could improve detection efficacy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".