Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39335390›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2024

A Machine Learning Approach to Classifying EEG Data Collected with or without Haptic Feedback during a Simulated Drilling Task.

Michael S Ramirez Campos, Heather S McCracken, Alvaro Uribe-Quevedo, Brianna L Grant, Paul C Yielder, Bernadette A Murphy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael S Ramirez CamposFaculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON L1G 0C5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7497-0438
Heather S McCrackenFaculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON L1G 0C5, Canada.
Alvaro Uribe-QuevedoFaculty of Business and Information Technology, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON L1G 0C5, Canada.
Brianna L GrantFaculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON L1G 0C5, Canada.
Paul C YielderFaculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON L1G 0C5, Canada.
Bernadette A MurphyFaculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON L1G 0C5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9832-5740

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council RGPIN-2017-05282Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council RGPIN-2022-04777
6 · The paper itself

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

electroencephalography (EEG)haptic feedbackmachine learningsimulations

Identifiers

PMID39335390
PMCPMC11429552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.