ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2024
Improved motor imagery training for subject's self-modulation in EEG-based brain-computer interface.
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.
- EEG-based brain-computer interface with immersive virtual reality for phantom limb pain: a single-center pilot neurofeedback trial.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For the electroencephalogram- (EEG-) based motor imagery (MI) brain-computer interface (BCI) system, more attention has been paid to the advanced machine learning algorithms rather than the effective MI training protocols over past two decades. However, it is crucial to assist the subjects in modulating their active brains to fulfill the endogenous MI tasks during the calibration process, which will facilitate signal processing using various machine learning algorithms. Therefore, we propose a trial-feedback paradigm to improve MI training and introduce a non-feedback paradigm for comparison. Each paradigm corresponds to one session. Two paradigms are applied to the calibration runs of corresponding sessions. And their effectiveness is verified in the subsequent testing runs of respective sessions. Different from the non-feedback paradigm, the trial-feedback paradigm presents a topographic map and its qualitative evaluation in real time after each MI training trial, so the subjects can timely realize whether the current trial successfully induces the event-related desynchronization/event-related synchronization (ERD/ERS) phenomenon, and then they can adjust their brain rhythm in the next MI trial. Moreover, after each calibration run of the trial-feedback session, a feature distribution is visualized and quantified to show the subjects' abilities to distinguish different MI tasks and promote their self-modulation in the next calibration run. Additionally, if the subjects feel distracted during the training processes of the non-feedback and trial-feedback sessions, they can execute the blinking movement which will be captured by the electrooculogram (EOG) signals, and the corresponding MI training trial will be abandoned. Ten healthy participants sequentially performed the non-feedback and trial-feedback sessions on the different days. The experiment results showed that the trial-feedback session had better spatial filter visualization, more beneficiaries, higher average off-line and on-line classification accuracies than the non-feedback session, suggesting the trial-feedback paradigm's usefulness in subject's self-modulation and good ability to perform MI tasks.
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.