ArticleBrain sciences2024
A Machine Learning Approach to Classifying EEG Data Collected with or without Haptic Feedback during a Simulated Drilling Task.
Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- EEG imagined speech neuro-signal preprocessing and deep learning classification.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploring Machine Learning Classification of Movement Phases in Hemiparetic Stroke Patients: A Controlled EEG-tDCS Study.Brain sciences · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI), computer simulations, and virtual reality (VR) are increasingly becoming accessible tools that can be leveraged to implement training protocols and educational resources. Typical assessment tools related to sensory and neural processing associated with task performance in virtual environments often rely on self-reported surveys, unlike electroencephalography (EEG), which is often used to compare the effects of different types of sensory feedback (e.g., auditory, visual, and haptic) in simulation environments in an objective manner. However, it can be challenging to know which aspects of the EEG signal represent the impact of different types of sensory feedback on neural processing. Machine learning approaches offer a promising direction for identifying EEG signal features that differentiate the impact of different types of sensory feedback during simulation training. For the current study, machine learning techniques were applied to differentiate neural circuitry associated with haptic and non-haptic feedback in a simulated drilling task. Nine EEG channels were selected and analyzed, extracting different time-domain, frequency-domain, and nonlinear features, where 360 features were tested (40 features per channel). A feature selection stage identified the most relevant features, including the Hurst exponent of 13-21 Hz, kurtosis of 21-30 Hz, power spectral density of 21-30 Hz, variance of 21-30 Hz, and spectral entropy of 13-21 Hz. Using those five features, trials with haptic feedback were correctly identified from those without haptic feedback with an accuracy exceeding 90%, increasing to 99% when using 10 features. These results show promise for the future application of machine learning approaches to predict the impact of haptic feedback on neural processing during VR protocols involving drilling tasks, which can inform future applications of VR and simulation for occupational skill acquisition.
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.