Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31822715›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Optimising non-invasive brain-computer interface systems for free communication between naïve human participants.

Angela I Renton, Jason B Mattingley, David R Painter

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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Implicit Neurofeedback Training of Feature-Based Attention Promotes Biased Sensory Processing during Integrative Decision-Making.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

3 authors.

Angela I RentonQueensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072, Australia. angie.renton23@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4815-9056
Jason B MattingleyQueensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0929-9216
David R PainterSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Free communication is one of the cornerstones of modern civilisation. While manual keyboards currently allow us to interface with computers and manifest our thoughts, a next frontier is communication without manual input. Brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers often achieve this by decoding patterns of neural activity as users attend to flickering keyboard displays. To date, the highest performing spellers report typing rates of ~10.00 words/minute. While impressive, these rates are typically calculated for experienced users repetitively typing single phrases. It is therefore not clear whether naïve users are able to achieve such high rates with the added cognitive load of genuine free communication, which involves continuously generating and spelling novel words and phrases. In two experiments, we developed an open-source, high-performance, non-invasive BCI speller and examined its feasibility for free communication. The BCI speller required users to focus their visual attention on a flickering keyboard display, thereby producing unique cortical activity patterns for each key, which were decoded using filter-bank canonical correlation analysis. In Experiment 1, we tested whether seventeen naïve users could maintain rapid typing during prompted free word association. We found that information transfer rates were indeed slower during this free communication task than during typing of a cued character sequence. In Experiment 2, we further evaluated the speller's efficacy for free communication by developing a messaging interface, allowing users to engage in free conversation. The results showed that free communication was possible, but that information transfer was reduced by voluntary textual corrections and turn-taking during conversation. We evaluated a number of factors affecting the suitability of BCI spellers for free communication, and make specific recommendations for improving classification accuracy and usability. Overall, we found that developing a BCI speller for free communication requires a focus on usability over reduced character selection time, and as such, future performance appraisals should be based on genuine free communication scenarios.

Indexed as

AdultAlgorithmsBrain-Computer InterfacesCommunicationCuesElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID31822715
PMCPMC6904487

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.