ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Group-member selection for RSVP-based collaborative brain-computer interfaces.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
- A group brain-controlled method for UAVs using a hybrid paradigm of hand movements and visual evoked potentials.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The brain-computer interface (BCI) systems based on rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) have been widely utilized for the detection of target and non-target images. Collaborative brain-computer interface (cBCI) effectively fuses electroencephalogram (EEG) data from multiple users to overcome the limitations of low single-user performance in single-trial event-related potential (ERP) detection in RSVP-based BCI systems. In a multi-user cBCI system, a superior group mode may lead to better collaborative performance and lower system cost. However, the key factors that enhance the collaboration capabilities of multiple users and how to further use these factors to optimize group mode remain unclear. Approach: This study proposed a group-member selection strategy to optimize the group mode and improve the system performance for RSVP-based cBCI. In contrast to the conventional grouping of collaborators at random, the group-member selection strategy enabled pairing each user with a better collaborator and allowed tasks to be done with fewer collaborators. Initially, we introduced the maximum individual capability and maximum collaborative capability (MIMC) to select optimal pairs, improving the system classification performance. The sequential forward floating selection (SFFS) combined with MIMC then selected a sub-group, aiming to reduce the hardware and labor expenses in the cBCI system. Moreover, the hierarchical discriminant component analysis (HDCA) was used as a classifier for within-session conditions, and the Euclidean space data alignment (EA) was used to overcome the problem of inter-trial variability for cross-session analysis. Main results: In this paper, we verified the effectiveness of the proposed group-member selection strategy on a public RSVP-based cBCI dataset. For the two-user matching task, the proposed MIMC had a significantly higher AUC and TPR and lower FPR than the common random grouping mode and the potential group-member selection method. Moreover, the SFFS with MIMC enabled a trade-off between maintaining performance and reducing the number of system users. Significance: The results showed that our proposed MIMC effectively optimized the group mode, enhanced the classification performance in the two-user matching task, and could reduce the redundant information by selecting the sub-group in the RSVP-based multi-user cBCI systems.
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.