↓ Skip to main content

Fast Recognition of BCI-Inefficient Users Using Physiological Features from EEG Signals: A Screening Study of Stroke Patients

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Fast Recognition of BCI-Inefficient Users Using Physiological Features from EEG Signals: A Screening Study of Stroke Patients
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00093
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaokang Shu, Shugeng Chen, Lin Yao, Xinjun Sheng, Dingguo Zhang, Ning Jiang, Jie Jia, Xiangyang Zhu

Abstract

Motor imagery (MI) based brain-computer interface (BCI) has been developed as an alternative therapy for stroke rehabilitation. However, experimental evidence demonstrates that a significant portion (10-50%) of subjects are BCI-inefficient users (accuracy less than 70%). Thus, predicting BCI performance prior to clinical BCI usage would facilitate the selection of suitable end-users and improve the efficiency of stroke rehabilitation. In the current study, we proposed two physiological variables, i.e., laterality index (LI) and cortical activation strength (CAS), to predict MI-BCI performance. Twenty-four stroke patients and 10 healthy subjects were recruited for this study. Each subject was required to perform two blocks of left- and right-hand MI tasks. Linear regression analyses were performed between the BCI accuracies and two physiological predictors. Here, the predictors were calculated from the electroencephalography (EEG) signals during paretic hand MI tasks (5 trials; approximately 1 min). LI values exhibited a statistically significant correlation with two-class BCI (left vs. right) performance (r = -0.732, p < 0.001), and CAS values exhibited a statistically significant correlation with brain-switch BCI (task vs. idle) performance (r = 0.641, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the BCI-inefficient users were successfully recognized with a sensitivity of 88.2% and a specificity of 85.7% in the two-class BCI. The brain-switch BCI achieved a sensitivity of 100.0% and a specificity of 87.5% in the discrimination of BCI-inefficient users. These results demonstrated that the proposed BCI predictors were promising to promote the BCI usage in stroke rehabilitation and contribute to a better understanding of the BCI-inefficiency phenomenon in stroke patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 21%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 27 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 23 26%
Neuroscience 9 10%
Computer Science 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 35 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#9,459
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,019
of 344,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#213
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 344,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.