↓ Skip to main content

User’s Self-Prediction of Performance in Motor Imagery Brain–Computer Interface

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
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.
Title
User’s Self-Prediction of Performance in Motor Imagery Brain–Computer Interface
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00059
Pubmed ID
Authors

Minkyu Ahn, Hohyun Cho, Sangtae Ahn, Sung C. Jun

Abstract

Performance variation is a critical issue in motor imagery brain-computer interface (MI-BCI), and various neurophysiological, psychological, and anatomical correlates have been reported in the literature. Although the main aim of such studies is to predict MI-BCI performance for the prescreening of poor performers, studies which focus on the user's sense of the motor imagery process and directly estimate MI-BCI performance through the user's self-prediction are lacking. In this study, we first test each user's self-prediction idea regarding motor imagery experimental datasets. Fifty-two subjects participated in a classical, two-class motor imagery experiment and were asked to evaluate their easiness with motor imagery and to predict their own MI-BCI performance. During the motor imagery experiment, an electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded; however, no feedback on motor imagery was given to subjects. From EEG recordings, the offline classification accuracy was estimated and compared with several questionnaire scores of subjects, as well as with each subject's self-prediction of MI-BCI performance. The subjects' performance predictions during motor imagery task showed a high positive correlation (r= 0.64,p< 0.01). Interestingly, it was observed that the self-prediction became more accurate as the subjects conducted more motor imagery tasks in the Correlation coefficient (pre-task to 2nd run:r= 0.02 tor= 0.54,p< 0.01) and root mean square error (pre-task to 3rd run: 17.7% to 10%,p< 0.01). We demonstrated that subjects may accurately predict their MI-BCI performance even without feedback information. This implies that the human brain is an active learning system and, by self-experiencing the endogenous motor imagery process, it can sense and adopt the quality of the process. Thus, it is believed that users may be able to predict MI-BCI performance and results may contribute to a better understanding of low performance and advancing BCI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 19 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 12 19%
Engineering 10 16%
Psychology 6 10%
Computer Science 5 8%
Unspecified 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 21 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,174,456
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,552
of 7,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,007
of 477,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#85
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,319 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 50% 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 477,224 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.