Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34899220›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2021

Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Visual Evoked Potential-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces for Motor Rehabilitation Applications: Systematic Review and Future Directions.

Josefina Gutierrez-Martinez, Jorge A Mercado-Gutierrez, Blanca E Carvajal-Gámez, Jorge L Rosas-Trigueros, Adrian E Contreras-Martinez

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Identifying Thematics in a Brain-Computer Interface Research.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Josefina Gutierrez-MartinezDivisión de Investigación en Ingeniería Médica, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Mexico City, Mexico.
Jorge A Mercado-GutierrezDivisión de Investigación en Ingeniería Médica, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Mexico City, Mexico.
Blanca E Carvajal-GámezEscuela Superior de Cómputo, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico.
Jorge L Rosas-TriguerosEscuela Superior de Cómputo, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico.
Adrian E Contreras-MartinezEscuela Superior de Cómputo, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico.
Instituto Politécnico Nacional · MXInstituto Nacional de Rehabilitación · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) is a technology that uses electroencephalographic (EEG) signals to control external devices, such as Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES). Visual BCI paradigms based on P300 and Steady State Visually Evoked potentials (SSVEP) have shown high potential for clinical purposes. Numerous studies have been published on P300- and SSVEP-based non-invasive BCIs, but many of them present two shortcomings: (1) they are not aimed for motor rehabilitation applications, and (2) they do not report in detail the artificial intelligence (AI) methods used for classification, or their performance metrics. To address this gap, in this paper the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology was applied to prepare a systematic literature review (SLR). Papers older than 10 years, repeated or not related to a motor rehabilitation application, were excluded. Of all the studies, 51.02% referred to theoretical analysis of classification algorithms. Of the remaining, 28.48% were for spelling, 12.73% for diverse applications (control of wheelchair or home appliances), and only 7.77% were focused on motor rehabilitation. After the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and quality screening was performed, 34 articles were selected. Of them, 26.47% used the P300 and 55.8% the SSVEP signal. Five applications categories were established: Rehabilitation Systems (17.64%), Virtual Reality environments (23.52%), FES (17.64%), Orthosis (29.41%), and Prosthesis (11.76%). Of all the works, only four performed tests with patients. The most reported machine learning (ML) algorithms used for classification were linear discriminant analysis (LDA) (48.64%) and support vector machine (16.21%), while only one study used a deep learning algorithm: a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). The reported accuracy ranged from 38.02 to 100%, and the Information Transfer Rate from 1.55 to 49.25 bits per minute. While LDA is still the most used AI algorithm, CNN has shown promising results, but due to their high technical implementation requirements, many researchers do not justify its implementation as worthwile. To achieve quick and accurate online BCIs for motor rehabilitation applications, future works on SSVEP-, P300-based and hybrid BCIs should focus on optimizing the visual stimulation module and the training stage of ML and DL algorithms.

Indexed as

BCIclassificationfunctional electrical stimulationP300performance metricssteady state visually evoked potentialsvirtual realityvisual stimulation

Identifiers

PMID34899220
PMCPMC8656949
OpenAlexW3215388553

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.