ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2022
Age-related differences in the transient and steady state responses to different visual stimuli.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Influence of age, cognitive function, attention, and mental state on the effectiveness of EEG-based brain-computer interface device use: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Brain responses to different action observation paradigms and assessing transferable cross-paradigm decoding.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review of machine learning algorithms and their application in geriatric medicine: present and future.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Review
- On the Influence of Aging on Classification Performance in the Visual EEG Oddball Paradigm Using Statistical and Temporal Features.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Brain-computer interface (BCI) has great potential in geriatric applications. However, most BCI studies in the literature used data from young population, and dedicated studies investigating the feasibility of BCIs among senior population are scarce. The current study, we analyzed the age-related differences in the transient electroencephalogram (EEG) response used in visual BCIs, i.e., visual evoked potential (VEP)/motion onset VEP (mVEP), and steady state-response, SSVEP/SSMVEP, between the younger group (age ranges from 22 to 30) and senior group (age ranges from 60 to 75). Methods: The visual stimulations, including flicker, checkerboard, and action observation (AO), were designed with a periodic frequency. Videos of several hand movement, including grasping, dorsiflexion, the thumb opposition, and pinch were utilized to generate the AO stimuli. Eighteen senior and eighteen younger participants were enrolled in the experiments. Spectral-temporal characteristics of induced EEG were compared. Three EEG algorithms, canonical correlation analysis (CCA), task-related component analysis (TRCA), and extended CCA, were utilized to test the performance of the respective BCI systems. Results: In the transient response analysis, the motion checkerboard and AO stimuli were able to elicit prominent mVEP with a specific P1 peak and N2 valley, and the amplitudes of P1 elicited in the senior group were significantly higher than those in the younger group. In the steady-state analysis, SSVEP/SSMVEP could be clearly elicited in both groups. The CCA accuracies of SSVEPs/SSMVEPs in the senior group were slightly lower than those in the younger group in most cases. With extended CCA, the performance of both groups improved significantly. However, for AO targets, the improvement of the senior group (from 63.1 to 71.9%) was lower than that of the younger group (from 63.6 to 83.6%). Conclusion: Compared with younger subjects, the amplitudes of P1 elicited by motion onset is significantly higher in the senior group, which might be a potential advantage for seniors if mVEP-based BCIs is used. This study also shows for the first time that AO-based BCI is feasible for the senior population. However, new algorithms for senior subjects, especially in identifying AO targets, are needed.
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.