ArticleBrain sciences2022
cVEP Training Data Validation-Towards Optimal Training Set Composition from Multi-Day Data.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper investigates the effects of the repetitive block-wise training process on the classification accuracy for a code-modulated visual evoked potentials (cVEP)-based brain-computer interface (BCI). The cVEP-based BCIs are popular thanks to their autocorrelation feature. The cVEP-based stimuli are generated by a specific code pattern, usually the m-sequence, which is phase-shifted between the individual targets. Typically, the cVEP classification requires a subject-specific template (individually created from the user's own pre-recorded EEG responses to the same stimulus target), which is compared to the incoming electroencephalography (EEG) data, using the correlation algorithms. The amount of the collected user training data determines the accuracy of the system. In this offline study, previously recorded EEG data collected during an online experiment with 10 participants from multiple sessions were used. A template matching target identification, with similar models as the task-related component analysis (TRCA), was used for target classification. The spatial filter was generated by the canonical correlation analysis (CCA). When comparing the training models from one session with the same session's data (intra-session) and the model from one session with the data from the other session (inter-session), the accuracies were (94.84%, 94.53%) and (76.67%, 77.34%) for intra-sessions and inter-sessions, respectively. In order to investigate the most reliable configuration for accurate classification, the training data blocks from different sessions (days) were compared interchangeably. In the best training set composition, the participants achieved an average accuracy of 82.66% for models based only on two training blocks from two different sessions. Similarly, at least five blocks were necessary for the average accuracy to exceed 90%. The presented method can further improve cVEP-based BCI performance by reusing previously recorded training data.
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.