ArticleFrontiers in neuroergonomics2023
Investigating the impact of visual perspective in a motor imagery-based brain-robot interaction: A pilot study with healthy participants.
Article in Frontiers in neuroergonomics, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decoding motor imagery related to major mimetic muscles from electroencephalography.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Motor Imagery (MI)-based Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI) have raised gained attention for their use in rehabilitation therapies since they allow controlling an external device by using brain activity, in this way promoting brain plasticity mechanisms that could lead to motor recovery. Specifically, rehabilitation robotics can provide precision and consistency for movement exercises, while embodied robotics could provide sensory feedback that can help patients improve their motor skills and coordination. However, it is still not clear whether different types of visual feedback may affect the elicited brain response and hence the effectiveness of MI-BCI for rehabilitation. Methods: In this paper, we compare two visual feedback strategies based on controlling the movement of robotic arms through a MI-BCI system: 1) first-person perspective, with visual information that the user receives when they view the robot arms from their own perspective; and 2) third-person perspective, whereby the subjects observe the robot from an external perspective. We studied 10 healthy subjects over three consecutive sessions. The electroencephalographic (EEG) signals were recorded and evaluated in terms of the power of the sensorimotor rhythms, as well as their lateralization, and spatial distribution. Results: Our results show that both feedback perspectives can elicit motor-related brain responses, but without any significant differences between them. Moreover, the evoked responses remained consistent across all sessions, showing no significant differences between the first and the last session. Discussion: Overall, these results suggest that the type of perspective may not influence the brain responses during a MI- BCI task based on a robotic feedback, although, due to the limited sample size, more evidence is required. Finally, this study resulted into the production of 180 labeled MI EEG datasets, publicly available for research purposes.
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.