Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36860620›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Discrepancy between inter- and intra-subject variability in EEG-based motor imagery brain-computer interface: Evidence from multiple perspectives.

Gan Huang, Zhiheng Zhao, Shaorong Zhang, Zhenxing Hu, Jiaming Fan, Meisong Fu, Jiale Chen, Yaqiong Xiao, Jun Wang, Guo Dan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

10 authors.

Gan HuangSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Zhiheng ZhaoSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Shaorong ZhangSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Zhenxing HuSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Jiaming FanSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Meisong FuSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Jiale ChenSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Yaqiong XiaoShenzhen Institute of Neuroscience, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Jun WangShenzhen Qianhai Shekou Free Trade Zone Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Guo DanSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Inter- and intra-subject variability are caused by the variability of the psychological and neurophysiological factors over time and across subjects. In the application of in Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI), the existence of inter- and intra-subject variability reduced the generalization ability of machine learning models seriously, which further limited the use of BCI in real life. Although many transfer learning methods can compensate for the inter- and intra-subject variability to some extent, there is still a lack of clear understanding about the change of feature distribution between the cross-subject and cross-session electroencephalography (EEG) signal. Methods: To investigate this issue, an online platform for motor-imagery BCI decoding has been built in this work. The EEG signal from both the multi-subject (Exp1) and multi-session (Exp2) experiments has been analyzed from multiple perspectives. Results: Firstly we found that with the similar variability of classification results, the time-frequency response of the EEG signal within-subject in Exp2 is more consistent than cross-subject results in Exp1. Secondly, the standard deviation of the common spatial pattern (CSP) feature has a significant difference between Exp1 and Exp2. Thirdly, for model training, different strategies for the training sample selection should be applied for the cross-subject and cross-session tasks. Discussion: All these findings have deepened the understanding of inter- and intra-subject variability. They can also guide practice for the new transfer learning methods development in EEG-based BCI. In addition, these results also proved that BCI inefficiency was not caused by the subject's unable to generate the event-related desynchronization/synchronization (ERD/ERS) signal during the motor imagery.

Indexed as

brain-computer interfaceelectroencephalography (EEG)inter- and intra-subject variabilitymotor imagerysensorimotor rhythms (SMR)

Identifiers

PMID36860620
PMCPMC9968845

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.