Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30992474›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains.

Linxing Jiang, Andrea Stocco, Darby M Losey, Justin A Abernethy, Chantel S Prat, Rajesh P N Rao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. When Two Become One: Singular Duos and the Neuroethical Frontiers of Brain-to-Brain Interfaces.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

6 authors.

Linxing JiangUniversity of Washington, Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Andrea StoccoUniversity of Washington, Department of Psychology, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8919-3934
Darby M LoseyCarnegie Mellon University, Department of Machine Learning, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Justin A AbernethyUniversity of Washington, Department of Psychology, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Chantel S PratUniversity of Washington, Department of Psychology, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Rajesh P N RaoUniversity of Washington, Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. rao@cs.washington.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present BrainNet which, to our knowledge, is the first multi-person non-invasive direct brain-to-brain interface for collaborative problem solving. The interface combines electroencephalography (EEG) to record brain signals and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to deliver information noninvasively to the brain. The interface allows three human subjects to collaborate and solve a task using direct brain-to-brain communication. Two of the three subjects are designated as "Senders" whose brain signals are decoded using real-time EEG data analysis. The decoding process extracts each Sender's decision about whether to rotate a block in a Tetris-like game before it is dropped to fill a line. The Senders' decisions are transmitted via the Internet to the brain of a third subject, the "Receiver," who cannot see the game screen. The Senders' decisions are delivered to the Receiver's brain via magnetic stimulation of the occipital cortex. The Receiver integrates the information received from the two Senders and uses an EEG interface to make a decision about either turning the block or keeping it in the same orientation. A second round of the game provides an additional chance for the Senders to evaluate the Receiver's decision and send feedback to the Receiver's brain, and for the Receiver to rectify a possible incorrect decision made in the first round. We evaluated the performance of BrainNet in terms of (1) Group-level performance during the game, (2) True/False positive rates of subjects' decisions, and (3) Mutual information between subjects. Five groups, each with three human subjects, successfully used BrainNet to perform the collaborative task, with an average accuracy of 81.25%. Furthermore, by varying the information reliability of the Senders by artificially injecting noise into one Sender's signal, we investigated how the Receiver learns to integrate noisy signals in order to make a correct decision. We found that like conventional social networks, BrainNet allows Receivers to learn to trust the Sender who is more reliable, in this case, based solely on the information transmitted directly to their brains. Our results point the way to future brain-to-brain interfaces that enable cooperative problem solving by humans using a "social network" of connected brains.

Indexed as

Brain-Computer InterfacesCooperative BehaviorDecision Making, Computer-AssistedDecision Making, SharedAdolescentAdultBrainCommunicationElectroencephalographyFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSocial NetworkingTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID30992474
PMCPMC6467884

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.