Investigating the cortical effect of false positive feedback on motor learning in motor imagery based rehabilitative BCI training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motor imagery-based brain-computer interface (MI-BCI) is a promising solution for neurorehabilitation. Many studies proposed that reducing false positive (FP) feedback is crucial for inducing neural plasticity by BCI technology. However, the effect of FP feedback on cortical plasticity induction during MI-BCI training is yet to be investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to validate the hypothesis that FP feedback affects the cortical plasticity of the user's MI during MI-BCI training by first comparing two different asynchronous MI-BCI paradigms (with and without FP feedback), and then comparing its effectiveness with that of conventional motor learning methods (passive and active training). METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers and four patients with stroke participated in the study. We implemented two electroencephalogram-driven asynchronous MI-BCI systems with different feedback conditions. The feedback was provided by a hand exoskeleton robot performing hand open/close task. We assessed the hemodynamic responses in two different feedback conditions and compared them with two conventional motor learning methods using functional near-infrared spectroscopy with an event-related design. The cortical effects of FP feedback were analyzed in different paradigms, as well as in the same paradigm via statistical analysis. RESULTS: The MI-BCI without FP feedback paradigm induced higher cortical activation in MI, focusing on the contralateral motor area, compared to the paradigm with FP feedback. Additionally, within the same paradigm providing FP feedback, the task period immediately following FP feedback elicited a lower hemodynamic response in the channel located over the contralateral motor area compared to the MI-BCI paradigm without FP feedback (p = 0.021 for healthy people; p = 0.079 for people with stroke). In contrast, task trials where there was no FP feedback just before showed a higher hemodynamic response, similar to the MI-BCI paradigm without FP feedback (p = 0.099 for healthy people, p = 0.084 for people with stroke). CONCLUSIONS: FP feedback reduced cortical activation for the users during MI-BCI training, suggesting a potential negative effect on cortical plasticity. Therefore, minimizing FP feedback may enhance the effectiveness of rehabilitative MI-BCI training by promoting stronger cortical activation and plasticity, particularly in the contralateral motor area.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".