ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2024
A generic error-related potential classifier based on simulated subjects.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2024. 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.
- Hybrid brain-computer interface using error-related potential and reinforcement learning.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Error-related potentials (ErrPs) are brain signals known to be generated as a reaction to erroneous events. Several works have shown that not only self-made errors but also mistakes generated by external agents can elicit such event-related potentials. The possibility of reliably measuring ErrPs through non-invasive techniques has increased the interest in the brain-computer interface (BCI) community in using such signals to improve performance, for example, by performing error correction. Extensive calibration sessions are typically necessary to gather sufficient trials for training subject-specific ErrP classifiers. This procedure is not only time-consuming but also boresome for participants. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of ErrPs in closed-loop systems, emphasizing their dependency on precise single-trial classification. To guarantee the presence of an ErrPs signal in the data we employ and to ensure that the parameters defining ErrPs are systematically varied, we utilize the open-source toolbox SEREEGA for data simulation. We generated training instances and evaluated the performance of the generic classifier on both simulated and real-world datasets, proposing a promising alternative to conventional calibration techniques. Results show that a generic support vector machine classifier reaches balanced accuracies of 72.9%, 62.7%, 71.0%, and 70.8% on each validation dataset. While performing similarly to a leave-one-subject-out approach for error class detection, the proposed classifier shows promising generalization across different datasets and subjects without further adaptation. Moreover, by utilizing SEREEGA, we can systematically adjust parameters to accommodate the variability in the ErrP, facilitating the systematic validation of closed-loop setups. Furthermore, our objective is to develop a universal ErrP classifier that captures the signal's variability, enabling it to determine the presence or absence of an ErrP in real EEG 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.