MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410609263 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0311075

Filter bank common spatial pattern and envelope-based features in multimodal EEG-fTCD brain-computer interfaces

2025· article· en· W4410609263 on OpenAlexaff
Alaa-Allah Essam, Ashar Seif Al-Nasr, Mariam El-Saqa, Sohila Mohamed, Ayman Anwar, Murat Akçakaya, Aya Khalaf

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceMotor imageryElectroencephalographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Speech recognitionNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) provide alternative means of communication and control for individuals with severe motor or speech impairments. Multimodal BCIs have been introduced recently to enhance the performance of BCIs utilizing single modality. In this paper, we aim to advance the state of the art in multimodal BCIs combining Electroencephalography (EEG) and functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound (fTCD) by introducing advanced analysis approaches that enhance system performance. Our EEG-fTCD BCIs employ two distinct paradigms to infer user intent: motor imagery (MI) and flickering mental rotation (MR)/word generation (WG) paradigms. In the MI paradigm, we introduce the use of Filter Bank Common Spatial Pattern (FBCSP) for the first time in an EEG-fTCD BCI, while in the flickering MR/WG paradigm, we extend FBCSP application to non-motor imagery tasks. Additionally, we extract previously unexplored time-series features from the envelope of fTCD signals, leveraging richer information from cerebral blood flow dynamics. Furthermore, we employ a Bayesian fusion framework that allows EEG and fTCD to contribute unequally to decision-making. The multimodal EEG-fTCD system achieved high classification accuracies across tasks in both paradigms. In the MI paradigm, accuracies of 94.53%, 94.9%, and 96.29% were achieved for left arm MI vs. baseline, right arm MI vs. baseline, and right arm MI vs. left arm MI, respectively - outperforming EEG-only accuracy by 3.87%, 3.80%, and 5.81%, respectively. In the MR/WG paradigm, the system achieved 95.27%, 85.93%, and 96.97% for MR vs. baseline, WG vs. baseline, and MR vs. WG, respectively, showing accuracy improvements of 2.28%, 4.95%, and 1.56%, respectively compared to EEG-only results. Overall, the proposed analysis approach improved classification accuracy for 5 out of 6 binary classification problems within the MI and MR/WG paradigms, with gains ranging from 0.64% to 9% compared to our previous EEG-fTCD studies. Additionally, our results demonstrate that EEG-fTCD BCIs with the proposed analysis techniques outperform multimodal EEG-fNIRS BCIs in both accuracy and speed, improving classification performance by 2.7% to 24.7% and reducing trial durations by 2-38 seconds. These findings highlight the potential of the proposed approach to advance assistive technologies and improve patient quality of life.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207