Cited by 46EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyTactile and Sensory Interactions

A comparison study of two P300 speller paradigms for brain–computer interface

Open access
Pan, Jiahui, Li, Yuanqing, Gu, Zhenghui, Yu, Zhuliang·2013·Cognitive Neurodynamics

Abstract

In this paper, a comparison of two existing P300 spellers is conducted. In the first speller, the visual stimuli of characters are presented in a single character (SC) paradigm and each button corresponding to a character flashes individually in a random order. The second speller is based on a region-based (RB) paradigm. In the first level, all characters are grouped and each button corresponding to a group flashes individually in a random order. Once a group is selected, the characters in it will appear on the flashing buttons of the second level for the selection of desired character. In a spelling experiment involving 12 subjects, higher online accuracy was obtained on the RB paradigm-based P300 speller than the SC paradigm-based P300 speller. Furthermore, we analyzed P300 detection performance, the P300 waveforms and Fisher ratios using the data collected by the two spellers. It was found that the stimuli display paradigm of the RB speller enhances P300 potential and is more suitable for P300 detection.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11571-013-9253-1

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SVM classifier was widely used in the EEG-based brain computer interface in practice.

    “It should be noted that SVM classifier was widely used in the EEG-based brain computer interface in practice [26–29].”

    From Fusion of Facial Expressions and EEG for Multimodal Emotion Recognition (2017) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Data collection and processing section uses an SVM classifier on EEG features, and the Region-based speller section says an SVM model was applied in an online BCI test. These passages support SVM use in an EEG-based BCI, but do not establish that SVM classifiers were widely used across such systems in practice. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Duda RO, Hart PE (1973) Pattern classification and scene analysis, vol 1. Wiley, New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pan, J., Li, Y., Gu, Z., & Yu, Z.
Affiliations
  • South China Normal University (CN)
  • South China University of Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Li, Yuanqing
Venue
Cognitive Neurodynamics
Published
2013-04-16
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
523-529
ISSN
  • 1871-4080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1871-4099
OpenAlex
W2072662136
Cited by
46
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Neurodynamics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (91120305, 863 Program, 2012AA011601, 61105121, 61175114)
  • National High-tech Research and Development Program
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
P300 speller, P300 event-related potential, brain-computer interface, character selection, P300 detection, Fisher ratio, visual stimulus presentation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review