↓ Skip to main content

How Many People Could Use an SSVEP BCI?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 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
How Many People Could Use an SSVEP BCI?
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Guger, Brendan Z. Allison, Bernhard Großwindhager, Robert Prückl, Christoph Hintermüller, Christoph Kapeller, Markus Bruckner, Gunther Krausz, Günter Edlinger

Abstract

Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) are communication systems that allow people to send messages or commands without movement. BCIs rely on different types of signals in the electroencephalogram (EEG), typically P300s, steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEP), or event-related desynchronization. Early BCI systems were often evaluated with a selected group of subjects. Also, many articles do not mention data from subjects who performed poorly. These and other factors have made it difficult to estimate how many people could use different BCIs. The present study explored how many subjects could use an SSVEP BCI. We recorded data from 53 subjects while they participated in 1-4 runs that were each 4 min long. During these runs, the subjects focused on one of four LEDs that each flickered at a different frequency. The eight channel EEG data were analyzed with a minimum energy parameter estimation algorithm and classified with linear discriminant analysis into one of the four classes. Online results showed that SSVEP BCIs could provide effective communication for all 53 subjects, resulting in a grand average accuracy of 95.5%. About 96.2% of the subjects reached an accuracy above 80%, and nobody was below 60%. This study showed that SSVEP based BCI systems can reach very high accuracies after only a very short training period. The SSVEP approach worked for all participating subjects, who attained accuracy well above chance level. This is important because it shows that SSVEP BCIs could provide communication for some users when other approaches might not work for them.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Spain 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 191 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 22%
Student > Master 31 15%
Researcher 27 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 44 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 58 29%
Neuroscience 22 11%
Computer Science 22 11%
Psychology 14 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 7%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 57 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 06 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,201,914
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#1,304
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,540
of 250,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#16
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 250,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.