MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390175233 · doi:10.3390/s24010080

A Brain-Controlled Quadruped Robot: A Proof-of-Concept Demonstration

2023· article· en· W4390175233 on OpenAlexaff
Nataliya Kosmyna, Eugene Hauptmann, Yasmeen Hmaidan

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionWearable computerProof of conceptContext (archaeology)ElectroencephalographyRobotInterface (matter)Artificial intelligenceEmbedded systemPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coupling brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and robotic systems in the future can enable seamless personal assistant systems in everyday life, with the requests that can be performed in a discrete manner, using one's brain activity only. These types of systems might be of a particular interest for people with locked-in syndrome (LIS) or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) because they can benefit from communicating with robotic assistants using brain sensing interfaces. In this proof-of-concept work, we explored how a wireless and wearable BCI device can control a quadruped robot-Boston Dynamics' Spot. The device measures the user's electroencephalography (EEG) and electrooculography (EOG) activity of the user from the electrodes embedded in the glasses' frame. The user responds to a series of questions with YES/NO answers by performing a brain-teaser activity of mental calculus. Each question-answer pair has a pre-configured set of actions for Spot. For instance, Spot was prompted to walk across a room, pick up an object, and retrieve it for the user (i.e., bring a bottle of water) when a sequence resolved to a YES response. Our system achieved at a success rate of 83.4%. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first integration of wireless, non-visual-based BCI systems with Spot in the context of personal assistant use cases. While this BCI quadruped robot system is an early prototype, future iterations may embody friendly and intuitive cues similar to regular service dogs. As such, this project aims to pave a path towards future developments in modern day personal assistant robots powered by wireless and wearable BCI systems in everyday living conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207