Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39776784›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2024

A Bayesian dynamic stopping method for evoked response brain-computer interfacing.

Sara Ahmadi, Peter Desain, Jordy Thielen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Sara AhmadiDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Peter DesainDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Jordy ThielenDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: As brain-computer interfacing (BCI) systems transition fromassistive technology to more diverse applications, their speed, reliability, and user experience become increasingly important. Dynamic stopping methods enhance BCI system speed by deciding at any moment whether to output a result or wait for more information. Such approach leverages trial variance, allowing good trials to be detected earlier, thereby speeding up the process without significantly compromising accuracy. Existing dynamic stopping algorithms typically optimize measures such as symbols per minute (SPM) and information transfer rate (ITR). However, these metrics may not accurately reflect system performance for specific applications or user types. Moreover, many methods depend on arbitrary thresholds or parameters that require extensive training data. Methods: We propose a model-based approach that takes advantage of the analytical knowledge that we have about the underlying classification model. By using a risk minimization approach, our model allows precise control over the types of errors and the balance between precision and speed. This adaptability makes it ideal for customizing BCI systems to meet the diverse needs of various applications. Results and discussion: We validate our proposed method on a publicly available dataset, comparing it with established static and dynamic stopping methods. Our results demonstrate that our approach offers a broad range of accuracy-speed trade-offs and achieves higher precision than baseline stopping methods.

Indexed as

Bayes testbrain-computer interfacing (BCI)c-VEPdynamic stoppingearly stoppingsignal detection theoryvisual evoked potentials (VEP)

Identifiers

PMID39776784
PMCPMC11703970

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.