ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2019
An inter-subject model to reduce the calibration time for motion imagination-based brain-computer interface.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2019. 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.
- Avoidance of specific calibration sessions in motor intention recognition for exoskeleton-supported rehabilitation through transfer learning on EEG data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Tailoring brain-machine interface rehabilitation training based on neural reorganization: towards personalized treatment for stroke patients.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Multi-Hierarchical Fusion to Capture the Latent Invariance for Calibration-Free Brain-Computer Interfaces.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- A Review on Signal Processing Approaches to Reduce Calibration Time in EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interface.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Application of Transfer Learning in EEG Decoding Based on Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- BCIAUT-P300: A Multi-Session and Multi-Subject Benchmark Dataset on Autism for P300-Based Brain-Computer-Interfaces.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A major factor blocking the practical application of brain-computer interfaces (BCI) is the long calibration time. To obtain enough training trials, participants must spend a long time in the calibration stage. In this paper, we propose a new framework to reduce the calibration time through knowledge transferred from the electroencephalogram (EEG) of other subjects. We trained the motor recognition model for the target subject using both the target's EEG signal and the EEG signals of other subjects. To reduce the individual variation of different datasets, we proposed two data mapping methods. These two methods separately diminished the variation caused by dissimilarities in the brain activation region and the strength of the brain activation in different subjects. After these data mapping stages, we adopted an ensemble method to aggregate the EEG signals from all subjects into a final model. We compared our method with other methods that reduce the calibration time. The results showed that our method achieves a satisfactory recognition accuracy using very few training trials (32 samples). Compared with existing methods using few training trials, our method achieved much greater accuracy. Graphical abstract The framework of the proposed method. The workflow of the framework have three steps: 1, process each subjects EEG signals according to the target subject's EEG signal. 2, generate models from each subjects' processed signals. 3, ensemble these models to a final model, the final model is a model for the target subject.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30498878What 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.