↓ Skip to main content

A Study of the Effects of Electrode Number and Decoding Algorithm on Online EEG-Based BCI Behavioral Performance

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
A Study of the Effects of Electrode Number and Decoding Algorithm on Online EEG-Based BCI Behavioral Performance
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00227
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jianjun Meng, Bradley J. Edelman, Jaron Olsoe, Gabriel Jacobs, Shuying Zhang, Angeliki Beyko, Bin He

Abstract

Motor imagery-based brain-computer interface (BCI) using electroencephalography (EEG) has demonstrated promising applications by directly decoding users' movement related mental intention. The selection of control signals, e.g., the channel configuration and decoding algorithm, plays a vital role in the online performance and progressing of BCI control. While several offline analyses report the effect of these factors on BCI accuracy for a single session-performance increases asymptotically by increasing the number of channels, saturates, and then decreases-no online study, to the best of our knowledge, has yet been performed to compare for a single session or across training. The purpose of the current study is to assess, in a group of forty-five subjects, the effect of channel number and decoding method on the progression of BCI performance across multiple training sessions and the corresponding neurophysiological changes. The 45 subjects were divided into three groups using Laplacian Filtering (LAP/S) with nine channels, Common Spatial Pattern (CSP/L) with 40 channels and CSP (CSP/S) with nine channels for online decoding. At the first training session, subjects using CSP/L displayed no significant difference compared to CSP/S but a higher average BCI performance over those using LAP/S. Despite the average performance when using the LAP/S method was initially lower, but LAP/S displayed improvement over first three sessions, whereas the other two groups did not. Additionally, analysis of the recorded EEG during BCI control indicates that the LAP/S produces control signals that are more strongly correlated with the target location and a higher R-square value was shown at the fifth session. In the present study, we found that subjects' average online BCI performance using a large EEG montage does not show significantly better performance after the first session than a smaller montage comprised of a common subset of these electrodes. The LAP/S method with a small EEG montage allowed the subjects to improve their skills across sessions, but no improvement was shown for the CSP method.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 26%
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Researcher 7 10%
Professor 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 25 36%
Computer Science 6 9%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Psychology 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#8,164,665
of 26,071,599 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,106
of 11,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,242
of 347,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#115
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,071,599 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 347,322 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 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 53% of its contemporaries.