ArticlePloS one2026
Decoding visual object recognition from EEG signals.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and clinical EEG require compact and interpretable decoders, yet scalp sensors mix cortical signals and blur frequency-specific activity. Identifying which cortical regions and features carry discriminative visual information enables efficient, anatomically grounded object recognition decoding. This study localizes the cortical sources of informative EEG signals and identifies compact, mechanism-guided features that are most efficient given fixed data or compute budgets. To address this, we construct a source-space decoding pipeline that projects sensor signals onto anatomically defined cortical regions. Trial-wise activity is summarized within regions of interest (ROIs), and four feature families are extracted from each ROI: band-limited power (delta-gamma), line length (LL) for transient activity, temporal morphology, and couplings reflecting coordination between regions. Per-participant Random Forest (RF) classifiers are trained, and generality is quantified as consistency and ROI importance rankings across participants. A low-dimensional representation based on line length yields the strongest overall performance, while temporal morphology and coupling features contribute less under short RSVP (Rapid Serial Visual Presentation) trials. Relative to the EEG-ImageNet sensor-space baseline (310 features), the 24-ROI LL-only stack shows higher reported mean accuracy while using 92% fewer features (24 features), while a finer-grained, extended visual-pathway ROI set shows higher reported mean accuracy while using 84% fewer features (50 features). Adding a small, anatomically constrained high-[Formula: see text] block produces near-tied performance rather than a consistent improvement. These findings indicate that, for single-trial 0.5 s RSVP decoding, most discriminative information is captured by simple time-domain structure in anatomically defined ROIs. High-[Formula: see text] power remains a useful reference feature family, but its incremental value is limited once LL is included. By grounding features in neuro-informed regions, this approach compares favorably, at the level of reported mean accuracy, with the sensor-space baseline while providing clear anatomical attribution at substantially lower dimensionality, supporting lightweight and interpretable EEG decoding.
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.