ArticlePloS one2025
Comparing MEG and EEG measurement set-ups for a brain-computer interface based on selective auditory attention.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Auditory attention modulates auditory evoked responses to target vs. non-target sounds in electro- and magnetoencephalographic (EEG/MEG) recordings. Employing whole-scalp MEG recordings and offline classification algorithms has been shown to enable high accuracy in tracking the target of auditory attention. Here, we investigated the decrease in accuracy when moving from the whole-scalp MEG to lower channel count EEG recordings and when training the classifier only from the initial or middle part of the recording instead of extracting training trials throughout the recording. To this end, we recorded simultaneous MEG (306 channels) and EEG (64 channels) in 18 healthy volunteers while presented with concurrent streams of spoken "Yes"/"No" words and instructed to attend to one of them. We then trained support vector machine classifiers to predict the target of attention from unaveraged trials of MEG/EEG. Classifiers were trained on 204 MEG gradiometers or on EEG with 64, 30, nine or three channels with trials extracted randomly across or only from the beginning of the recording. The highest classification accuracy, 73.2% on average across the participants for one-second trials, was obtained with MEG when the training trials were randomly extracted throughout the recording. With EEG, the accuracy was 69%, 69%, 66%, and 61% when using 64, 30, nine, and three channels, respectively. When training the classifiers with the same amount of data but extracted only from the beginning of the recording, the accuracy dropped by 11%-units on average, causing the result from the three-channel EEG to fall below the chance level. The combination of five consecutive trials partially compensated for this drop such that it was one to 5%-units. Although moving from whole-scalp MEG to EEG reduces classification accuracy, usable auditory-attention-based brain-computer interfaces can be implemented with a small set of optimally placed EEG channels.
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.