Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34276292›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021

Optimization of Task Allocation for Collaborative Brain-Computer Interface Based on Motor Imagery.

Bin Gu, Minpeng Xu, Lichao Xu, Long Chen, Yufeng Ke, Kun Wang, Jiabei Tang, Dong Ming

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. 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. [Prospects and technical challenges of non-invasive brain-computer interfaces in manned space missions].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Bin GuNeural Engineering & Rehabilitation Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Precision Instruments and Optoelectronics Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.
Minpeng XuNeural Engineering & Rehabilitation Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Precision Instruments and Optoelectronics Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.
Lichao XuAcademy of Medical Engineering and Translational Medicine, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.
Long ChenAcademy of Medical Engineering and Translational Medicine, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.
Yufeng KeAcademy of Medical Engineering and Translational Medicine, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.
Kun WangAcademy of Medical Engineering and Translational Medicine, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.
Jiabei TangNeural Engineering & Rehabilitation Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Precision Instruments and Optoelectronics Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.
Dong MingNeural Engineering & Rehabilitation Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Precision Instruments and Optoelectronics Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCollaborative brain-computer interfaces (cBCIs) can make the BCI output more credible by jointly decoding concurrent brain signals from multiple collaborators. Current cBCI systems usually require all collaborators to execute the same mental tasks (common-work strategy). However, it is still unclear whether the system performance will be improved by assigning different tasks to collaborators (division-of-work strategy) while keeping the total tasks unchanged. Therefore, we studied a task allocation scheme of division-of-work and compared the corresponding classification accuracies with common-work strategy's. APPROACH: This study developed an electroencephalograph (EEG)-based cBCI which had six instructions related to six different motor imagery tasks (MI-cBCI), respectively. For the common-work strategy, all five subjects as a group had the same whole instruction set and they were required to conduct the same instruction at a time. For the division-of-work strategy, every subject's instruction set was a subset of the whole one and different from each other. However, their union set was equal to the whole set. Based on the number of instructions in a subset, we divided the division-of-work strategy into four types, called "2 Tasks" … "5 Tasks." To verify the effectiveness of these strategies, we employed EEG data collected from 19 subjects who independently performed six types of MI tasks to conduct the pseudo-online classification of MI-cBCI. MAIN

resultsTaking the number of tasks performed by one collaborator as the horizontal axis (two to six), the classification accuracy curve of MI-cBCI was mountain-like. The curve reached its peak at "4 Tasks," which means each subset contained four instructions. It outperformed the common-work strategy ("6 Tasks") in classification accuracy ( SIGNIFICANCE: The results demonstrate that our proposed task allocation strategy effectively enhanced the cBCI classification performance and reduced the individual workload.

Indexed as

collaborative brain-computer interfacescommon-workdivision-of-workmotor imagerytask allocation

Identifiers

PMID34276292
PMCPMC8282908

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.