ArticleScientific reports2024
Using data from cue presentations results in grossly overestimating semantic BCI performance.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- GRASP: a response-locked paradigm that reveals low-beta desynchronisation is a participant-invariant signature of semantic decoding in EEG.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Simultaneous EEG and fNIRS recordings for semantic decoding of imagined animals and tools.Scientific data · 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
Neuroimaging studies have reported the possibility of semantic neural decoding to identify specific semantic concepts from neural activity. This offers promise for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for communication. However, translating these findings into a BCI paradigm has proven challenging. Existing EEG-based semantic decoding studies often rely on neural activity recorded when a cue is present, raising concerns about decoding reliability. To address this, we investigate the effects of cue presentation on EEG-based semantic decoding. In an experiment with a clear separation between cue presentation and mental task periods, we attempt to differentiate between semantic categories of animals and tools in four mental tasks. By using state-of-the-art decoding analyses, we demonstrate significant mean classification accuracies up to 71.3% during cue presentation but not during mental tasks, even with adapted analyses from previous studies. These findings highlight a potential issue when using neural activity recorded during cue presentation periods for semantic decoding. Additionally, our results show that semantic decoding without external cues may be more challenging than current state-of-the-art research suggests. By bringing attention to these issues, we aim to stimulate discussion and drive advancements in the field toward more effective semantic BCI applications.
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.