ArticleJournal of healthcare engineering2020
Investigation of Delayed Response during Real-Time Cursor Control Using Electroencephalography.
Article in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electroencephalography Reflects User Satisfaction in Controlling Robot Hand through Electromyographic Signals.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Brain Activity Reflects Subjective Response to Delayed Input When Using an Electromyography-Controlled Robot.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Error-related brain activation has been investigated for advanced brain-machine interfaces (BMI). However, how a delayed response of cursor control in BMI systems should be handled is not clear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate how participants responded to delayed cursor control. Six subjects participated in the experiment and performed a wrist-bending task. For three distinct delay intervals (an interval where participants could not perceive the delay, an interval where participants could not be sure whether there was a delay or not, and an interval where participants could perceive the delay), we assessed two types of binary classifications ("Yes + No" vs. "I don't know" and "Yes" vs. "No") based on participants' responses and applied delay times (thus, four types of classification, overall). For most participants, the "Yes vs. No" classification had higher accuracy than "Yes + No" vs. "I don't know" classification. For the "Yes + No" vs. "I don't know" classification, most participants displayed higher accuracy based on response classification than delay classification. Our results demonstrate that a class only for "I don't know" largely contributed to these differences. Many independent components (ICs) that exhibited high accuracy in "Yes + No" vs. "I don't know" response classification were associated with activation of areas from the frontal to parietal lobes, while many ICs that showed high accuracy in the "Yes vs. No" classification were associated with activation of an area ranging from the parietal to the occipital lobes and were more broadly localized in cortical regions than was seen for the "Yes + No" vs. "I don't know" classification. Our results suggest that small and large delays in real-time cursor control differ not only in the magnitude of the delay but should be handled as distinct information in different ways and might involve differential processing in the brain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.