Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30698704›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2019

EEG dataset and OpenBMI toolbox for three BCI paradigms: an investigation into BCI illiteracy.

Min-Ho Lee, O-Yeon Kwon, Yong-Jeong Kim, Hong-Kyung Kim, Young-Eun Lee, John Williamson, Siamac Fazli, Seong-Whan Lee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
21.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

108 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 548 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Min-Ho LeeDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Korea.
O-Yeon KwonDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Korea.
Yong-Jeong KimDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Korea.
Hong-Kyung KimDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Korea.
Young-Eun LeeDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Korea.
John WilliamsonDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Korea.
Siamac FazliDepartment of Computer Science, Nazarbayev University, Qabanbay Batyr Ave 53, Astana 010000, Kazakhstan.
Seong-Whan LeeDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Korea.
Korea University · KRNazarbayev University · KZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectroencephalography (EEG)-based brain-computer interface (BCI) systems are mainly divided into three major paradigms: motor imagery (MI), event-related potential (ERP), and steady-state visually evoked potential (SSVEP). Here, we present a BCI dataset that includes the three major BCI paradigms with a large number of subjects over multiple sessions. In addition, information about the psychological and physiological conditions of BCI users was obtained using a questionnaire, and task-unrelated parameters such as resting state, artifacts, and electromyography of both arms were also recorded. We evaluated the decoding accuracies for the individual paradigms and determined performance variations across both subjects and sessions. Furthermore, we looked for more general, severe cases of BCI illiteracy than have been previously reported in the literature.

resultsAverage decoding accuracies across all subjects and sessions were 71.1% (± 0.15), 96.7% (± 0.05), and 95.1% (± 0.09), and rates of BCI illiteracy were 53.7%, 11.1%, and 10.2% for MI, ERP, and SSVEP, respectively. Compared to the ERP and SSVEP paradigms, the MI paradigm exhibited large performance variations between both subjects and sessions. Furthermore, we found that 27.8% (15 out of 54) of users were universally BCI literate, i.e., they were able to proficiently perform all three paradigms. Interestingly, we found no universally illiterate BCI user, i.e., all participants were able to control at least one type of BCI system.

conclusionsOur EEG dataset can be utilized for a wide range of BCI-related research questions. All methods for the data analysis in this study are supported with fully open-source scripts that can aid in every step of BCI technology. Furthermore, our results support previous but disjointed findings on the phenomenon of BCI illiteracy.

Indexed as

Brain-Computer InterfacesElectroencephalographyAdultAlgorithmsEvoked PotentialsEvoked Potentials, VisualFemaleHumansMaleMovementBCI illiteracybrain-computer interfaceEEG datasetsevent-related potentialmotor-imageryOpenBMI toolboxsteady-state visually evoked potential

Identifiers

PMID30698704
PMCPMC6501944
OpenAlexW2912885887

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.