ArticleJournal of neural engineering2011
Goal selection versus process control while learning to use a brain-computer interface.
Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in neuroplasticity after spinal cord injury in varying animal models and humans.Neural regeneration research · 2019Review
- Evaluating a Semiautonomous Brain-Computer Interface Based on Conformal Geometric Algebra and Artificial Vision.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2019Article
- Demonstration of a semi-autonomous hybrid brain-machine interface using human intracranial EEG, eye tracking, and computer vision to control a robotic upper limb prosthetic.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2014Article
- High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation induces both acute and persistent changes in broadband cortical synchronization: a simultaneous tDCS-EEG study.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2014Article
- Brain-computer interfaces using sensorimotor rhythms: current state and future perspectives.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2014Review
- Performance assessment in brain-computer interface-based augmentative and alternative communication.Biomedical engineering online · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A brain-computer interface (BCI) can be used to accomplish a task without requiring motor output. Two major control strategies used by BCIs during task completion are process control and goal selection. In process control, the user exerts continuous control and independently executes the given task. In goal selection, the user communicates their goal to the BCI and then receives assistance executing the task. A previous study has shown that goal selection is more accurate and faster in use. An unanswered question is, which control strategy is easier to learn? This study directly compares goal selection and process control while learning to use a sensorimotor rhythm-based BCI. Twenty young healthy human subjects were randomly assigned either to a goal selection or a process control-based paradigm for eight sessions. At the end of the study, the best user from each paradigm completed two additional sessions using all paradigms randomly mixed. The results of this study were that goal selection required a shorter training period for increased speed, accuracy, and information transfer over process control. These results held for the best subjects as well as in the general subject population. The demonstrated characteristics of goal selection make it a promising option to increase the utility of BCIs intended for both disabled and able-bodied users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.