Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25729347›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2015

Reinforcement learning for adaptive threshold control of restorative brain-computer interfaces: a Bayesian simulation.

Robert Bauer, Alireza Gharabaghi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Brain-Machine Neurofeedback: Robotics or Electrical Stimulation?Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Article
  8. Recruitment of Additional Corticospinal Pathways in the Human Brain with State-Dependent Paired Associative Stimulation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  9. Reaction Time Predicts Brain-Computer Interface Aptitude.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2018
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Therapeutic Applications of BCI Technologies.Brain computer interfaces (Abingdon, England) · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Robert BauerDivision of Functional and Restorative Neurosurgery and Division of Translational Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosurgery, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen Tuebingen, Germany ; Neuroprosthetics Research Group, Werner Reichardt Centre for Integrative Neuroscience, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen Tuebingen, Germany.
Alireza GharabaghiDivision of Functional and Restorative Neurosurgery and Division of Translational Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosurgery, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen Tuebingen, Germany ; Neuroprosthetics Research Group, Werner Reichardt Centre for Integrative Neuroscience, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen Tuebingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Restorative brain-computer interfaces (BCI) are increasingly used to provide feedback of neuronal states in a bid to normalize pathological brain activity and achieve behavioral gains. However, patients and healthy subjects alike often show a large variability, or even inability, of brain self-regulation for BCI control, known as BCI illiteracy. Although current co-adaptive algorithms are powerful for assistive BCIs, their inherent class switching clashes with the operant conditioning goal of restorative BCIs. Moreover, due to the treatment rationale, the classifier of restorative BCIs usually has a constrained feature space, thus limiting the possibility of classifier adaptation. In this context, we applied a Bayesian model of neurofeedback and reinforcement learning for different threshold selection strategies to study the impact of threshold adaptation of a linear classifier on optimizing restorative BCIs. For each feedback iteration, we first determined the thresholds that result in minimal action entropy and maximal instructional efficiency. We then used the resulting vector for the simulation of continuous threshold adaptation. We could thus show that threshold adaptation can improve reinforcement learning, particularly in cases of BCI illiteracy. Finally, on the basis of information-theory, we provided an explanation for the achieved benefits of adaptive threshold setting.

Indexed as

brain-computer interfacebrain-machine interfacebrain-robot interfaceclassification accuracyfunctional restorationneurofeedbackneurorehabilitationreinforcement learning

Identifiers

PMID25729347
PMCPMC4325901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.