Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32325633›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2020

Comparison of Different Visual Feedback Methods for SSVEP-Based BCIs.

Mihaly Benda, Ivan Volosyak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Mihaly BendaFaculty of Technology and Bionics, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, 47533 Kleve, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9557-3199
Ivan VolosyakFaculty of Technology and Bionics, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, 47533 Kleve, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6555-7617

Funding

European Regional Development Fund IT-1-2-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper we compared different visual feedback methods, informing users about classification progress in a steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based brain-computer interface (BCI) speller application. According to results from our previous studies, changes in stimulus size and contrast as online feedback of classification progress have great impact on BCI performance in SSVEP-based spellers. In this experiment we further investigated these effects, and tested a 4-target SSVEP speller interface with a much higher number of subjects. Five different scenarios were used with variations in stimulus size and contrast, "

Indexed as

brain–computer interface (BCI)electroencephalography (EEG)steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)user feedback

Identifiers

PMID32325633
PMCPMC7226383

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.