Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27199710›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2016

The Brain Is Faster than the Hand in Split-Second Intentions to Respond to an Impending Hazard: A Simulation of Neuroadaptive Automation to Speed Recovery to Perturbation in Flight Attitude.

Daniel E Callan, Cengiz Terzibas, Daniel B Cassel, Masa-Aki Sato, Raja Parasuraman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Prospects and technical challenges of non-invasive brain-computer interfaces in manned space missions].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018
    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

5 authors.

Daniel E CallanCenter for Information and Neural Networks, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Osaka UniversityOsaka, Japan; Multisensory Cognition and Computation Laboratory, Universal Communication Research Institute, National Institute of Information and Communications TechnologyKyoto, Japan.
Cengiz TerzibasMultisensory Cognition and Computation Laboratory, Universal Communication Research Institute, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology Kyoto, Japan.
Daniel B CasselLocomobi Inc. Toronto, ON, Canada.
Masa-Aki SatoNeural Information Analysis Laboratories, Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute Kyoto, Japan.
Raja ParasuramanCenter of Excellence in Neuroergonomics, Technology, and Cognition, George Mason University Fairfax, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of this research is to test the potential for neuroadaptive automation to improve response speed to a hazardous event by using a brain-computer interface (BCI) to decode perceptual-motor intention. Seven participants underwent four experimental sessions while measuring brain activity with magnetoencephalograpy. The first three sessions were of a simple constrained task in which the participant was to pull back on the control stick to recover from a perturbation in attitude in one condition and to passively observe the perturbation in the other condition. The fourth session consisted of having to recover from a perturbation in attitude while piloting the plane through the Grand Canyon constantly maneuvering to track over the river below. Independent component analysis was used on the first two sessions to extract artifacts and find an event related component associated with the onset of the perturbation. These two sessions were used to train a decoder to classify trials in which the participant recovered from the perturbation (motor intention) vs. just passively viewing the perturbation. The BCI-decoder was tested on the third session of the same simple task and found to be able to significantly distinguish motor intention trials from passive viewing trials (mean = 69.8%). The same BCI-decoder was then used to test the fourth session on the complex task. The BCI-decoder significantly classified perturbation from no perturbation trials (73.3%) with a significant time savings of 72.3 ms (Original response time of 425.0-352.7 ms for BCI-decoder). The BCI-decoder model of the best subject was shown to generalize for both performance and time savings to the other subjects. The results of our off-line open loop simulation demonstrate that BCI based neuroadaptive automation has the potential to decode motor intention faster than manual control in response to a hazardous perturbation in flight attitude while ignoring ongoing motor and visual induced activity related to piloting the airplane.

Indexed as

aviationbrain computer interfacebrain machine interfacedecodingindependent component analysisMEGneuroadaptive automationneuroergonomics

Identifiers

PMID27199710
PMCPMC4846799

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.