↓ Skip to main content

Benchmarking Brain-Computer Interfaces Outside the Laboratory: The Cybathlon 2016

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Benchmarking Brain-Computer Interfaces Outside the Laboratory: The Cybathlon 2016
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00756
Pubmed ID
Authors

Domen Novak, Roland Sigrist, Nicolas J. Gerig, Dario Wyss, René Bauer, Ulrich Götz, Robert Riener

Abstract

This paper presents a new approach to benchmarking brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) outside the lab. A computer game was created that mimics a real-world application of assistive BCIs, with the main outcome metric being the time needed to complete the game. This approach was used at the Cybathlon 2016, a competition for people with disabilities who use assistive technology to achieve tasks. The paper summarizes the technical challenges of BCIs, describes the design of the benchmarking game, then describes the rules for acceptable hardware, software and inclusion of human pilots in the BCI competition at the Cybathlon. The 11 participating teams, their approaches, and their results at the Cybathlon are presented. Though the benchmarking procedure has some limitations (for instance, we were unable to identify any factors that clearly contribute to BCI performance), it can be successfully used to analyze BCI performance in realistic, less structured conditions. In the future, the parameters of the benchmarking game could be modified to better mimic different applications (e.g., the need to use some commands more frequently than others). Furthermore, the Cybathlon has the potential to showcase such devices to the general public.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 23%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 25 31%
Computer Science 8 10%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,267,105
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,729
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,062
of 450,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#76
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 450,898 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 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 62% of its contemporaries.