Signal Characteristics, Motor Cortex Engagement, and Classification Performance of Combined Action Observation, Motor Imagery and SSMVEP (CAMS) BCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor imagery (MI)-based Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) have shown promise in engaging the motor cortex for recovery. However, individual responses to MI-based BCIs are highly variable and relatively weak. Conversely, combined action observation (AO) and motor imagery (MI) paradigms have demonstrated stronger responses compared to AO or MI alone, along with enhanced cortical excitability. In this study, a novel BCI called Combined AO, MI, and Steady-State Motion Visual Evoked Potential (SSMVEP) (CAMS) was proposed. CAMS was designed based on gait observation and imagination. Twenty-five healthy volunteers participated in the study with CAMS serving as the intervention and SSMVEP checkerboard as the control condition. We hypothesized the CAMS intervention can induce observable increases in the negativity of the movement-related cortical potential (MRCP) associated with ankle dorsiflexion. MRCP components, including Bereitschaftspotential, were measured pre- and post-intervention. Additionally, the signal characteristics of the visual and motor responses were quantified. Finally, a two-class visual BCI classification performance was assessed. A consistent increase in negativity was observed across all MRCP components in signals over the primary motor cortex, compared to the control condition. CAMS visual BCI achieved a median accuracy of 83.8%. These findings demonstrate the ability of CAMS BCI to enhance cortical excitability in relation to movement preparation and execution. The CAMS stimulus not only evokes SSMVEP-like activity and sensorimotor rhythm but also enhances the MRCP. These findings contribute to the understanding of CAMS paradigm in enhancing cortical excitability, consistent and reliable classification performance holding promise for motor rehabilitation outcomes and future BCI design considerations.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".