MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367050195 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2828823/v1

Fatigue in Children Using Motor Imagery and P300 Brain-Computer Interfaces

2023· preprint· en· W4367050195 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Renée Grandinetti Keough, Brian Irvine, Dion Kelly, James G. Wrightson, Daniel Comadurán Márquez, Eli Kinney‐Lang, Adam Kirton

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceElectroencephalographyMotor imagerySensorimotor rhythmPsychologyAudiologyBrain activity and meditationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology offers children with quadriplegic cerebral palsy unique opportunities for communication, environmental exploration, learning, and game play. Research in adults demonstrates a negative impact of fatigue on BCI enjoyment, while effects on BCI performance are variable. To date, there have been no pediatric studies of BCI fatigue. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of two different BCI paradigms, motor imagery and visual P300, on the development of self-reported fatigue and an electroencephalography (EEG) biomarker of fatigue in healthy children.Methods Thirty-seven typically-developing school-aged children were recruited to a prospective, crossover study. Participants attended three sessions: (A) motor imagery-BCI, (B) visual P300-BCI, and (C) video viewing (control). The motor imagery task involved an imagined left- or right-hand squeeze. The P300 task involved attending to one square on a 3x3 grid during a random single flash sequence. Each paradigm had respective calibration periods and a similar visual counting game. Primary outcomes were self-reported fatigue and the power of the EEG alpha band both collected during resting-state periods pre- and post-task. Self-reported fatigue was measured using a 10-point visual analog scale. EEG alpha band power was calculated as the integrated power spectral density from 8–12 Hz of the EEG spectrum.Results Thirty-two children completed the protocol (age range 7–16, 63% female). Self-reported fatigue and EEG alpha band power increased across all sessions (F(1,155) = 33.9, p < 0.001; F = 4.0(1,149), p = 0.047 respectively). No differences in fatigue development were observed between session types. There was no correlation between self-reported fatigue and EEG alpha band power change. BCI performance varied between participants and paradigms as expected but was not associated with self-reported fatigue or EEG alpha band power.Conclusion Short periods (30-mintues) of BCI use can increase self-reported fatigue and EEG alpha band power to a similar degree in children performing motor imagery and P300 BCI paradigms. Performance was not associated with our measures of fatigue; the impact of fatigue on useability and enjoyment is unclear. Our results reflect the variability of fatigue and the BCI experience more broadly in children and warrant further investigation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207