ArticlePloS one2014
Collaborative brain-computer interface for aiding decision-making.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Give us a hand, mate! A holistic review of research on human-machine teaming.BMJ military health · 2025Review
- The present and future of neural interfaces.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2022Article
- Enhancing performance with multisensory cues in a realistic target discrimination task.PloS one · 2022Article
- Workshops of the Eighth International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting: BCIs: The Next Frontier.Brain computer interfaces (Abingdon, England) · 2022Article
- Anytime collaborative brain-computer interfaces for enhancing perceptual group decision-making.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Passive Brain-Computer Interfaces for Enhanced Human-Robot Interaction.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2020Review
- A Cross-Session Dataset for Collaborative Brain-Computer Interfaces Based on Rapid Serial Visual Presentation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
- Simultaneous EEG Acquisition System for Multiple Users: Development and Related Issues.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Workshops of the Seventh International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting: Not Getting Lost in Translation.Brain computer interfaces (Abingdon, England) · 2019Article
- Neurotechnologies for Human Cognitive Augmentation: Current State of the Art and Future Prospects.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Review
- Article
- Human Brain/Cloud Interface.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Group Augmentation in Realistic Visual-Search Decisions via a Hybrid Brain-Computer Interface.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Towards the automated localisation of targets in rapid image-sifting by collaborative brain-computer interfaces.PloS one · 2017Article
- Computing Arm Movements with a Monkey Brainet.Scientific reports · 2015Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We look at the possibility of integrating the percepts from multiple non-communicating observers as a means of achieving better joint perception and better group decisions. Our approach involves the combination of a brain-computer interface with human behavioural responses. To test ideas in controlled conditions, we asked observers to perform a simple matching task involving the rapid sequential presentation of pairs of visual patterns and the subsequent decision as whether the two patterns in a pair were the same or different. We recorded the response times of observers as well as a neural feature which predicts incorrect decisions and, thus, indirectly indicates the confidence of the decisions made by the observers. We then built a composite neuro-behavioural feature which optimally combines the two measures. For group decisions, we uses a majority rule and three rules which weigh the decisions of each observer based on response times and our neural and neuro-behavioural features. Results indicate that the integration of behavioural responses and neural features can significantly improve accuracy when compared with the majority rule. An analysis of event-related potentials indicates that substantial differences are present in the proximity of the response for correct and incorrect trials, further corroborating the idea of using hybrids of brain-computer interfaces and traditional strategies for improving decision making.
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.