The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Brain Is Faster than the Hand in Split-Second Intentions to Respond to an Impending Hazard: A Simulation of Neuroadaptive Automation to Speed Recovery to Perturbation in Flight Attitude
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00187 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel E. Callan, Cengiz Terzibas, Daniel B. Cassel, Masa-aki Sato, Raja Parasuraman |
| Abstract |
The goal of this research is to test the potential for neuroadaptive automation to improve response speed to a hazardous event by using a brain-computer interface (BCI) to decode perceptual-motor intention. Seven participants underwent four experimental sessions while measuring brain activity with magnetoencephalograpy. The first three sessions were of a simple constrained task in which the participant was to pull back on the control stick to recover from a perturbation in attitude in one condition and to passively observe the perturbation in the other condition. The fourth session consisted of having to recover from a perturbation in attitude while piloting the plane through the Grand Canyon constantly maneuvering to track over the river below. Independent component analysis was used on the first two sessions to extract artifacts and find an event related component associated with the onset of the perturbation. These two sessions were used to train a decoder to classify trials in which the participant recovered from the perturbation (motor intention) vs. just passively viewing the perturbation. The BCI-decoder was tested on the third session of the same simple task and found to be able to significantly distinguish motor intention trials from passive viewing trials (mean = 69.8%). The same BCI-decoder was then used to test the fourth session on the complex task. The BCI-decoder significantly classified perturbation from no perturbation trials (73.3%) with a significant time savings of 72.3 ms (Original response time of 425.0-352.7 ms for BCI-decoder). The BCI-decoder model of the best subject was shown to generalize for both performance and time savings to the other subjects. The results of our off-line open loop simulation demonstrate that BCI based neuroadaptive automation has the potential to decode motor intention faster than manual control in response to a hazardous perturbation in flight attitude while ignoring ongoing motor and visual induced activity related to piloting the airplane. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 19% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 10 | 28% |
| Psychology | 6 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 14% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,379,155
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,196
of 7,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,616
of 299,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#82
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.