Cited by 276EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology

Classification of prefrontal and motor cortex signals for three-class fNIRS-BCI

Hong, Keum-Shik, Naseer, Noman, Kim, Yun-Hee·2015·Neuroscience Letters

Abstract

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is an optical imaging method that can be used for a brain-computer interface (BCI). In the present study, we concurrently measure and discriminate fNIRS signals evoked by three different mental activities, that is, mental arithmetic (MA), right-hand motor imagery (RI), and left-hand motor imagery (LI). Ten healthy subjects were asked to perform the MA, RI, and LI during a 10s task period. Using a continuous-wave NIRS system, signals were acquired concurrently from the prefrontal and the primary motor cortices. Multiclass linear discriminant analysis was utilized to classify MA vs. RI vs. LI with an average classification accuracy of 75.6% across the ten subjects, for a 2-7s time window during the a 10s task period. These results demonstrate the feasibility of implementing a three-class fNIRS-BCI using three different intentionally-generated cognitive tasks as inputs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neulet.2014.12.029

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Current BCI systems do not have ability to decode movement intention, instead use imagination based tasks for control.

    “The current BCI systems do not have the ability to decode movement intention, instead they use imagination based tasks for control (Hong and Nguyen, 2014; Khan et al., 2014; Hong et al., 2015).”

    From Selectivity and Longevity of Peripheral-Nerve and Machine Interfaces: A Review. (2017) · cites this paper as Hong et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hong, K.-S., Naseer, N., & Kim, Y.-H.
Affiliations
  • Pusan National University (KR)
  • Samsung Medical Center (KR)
Corresponding author
Hong, Keum-Shik
Venue
Neuroscience Letters
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
587
Pages
87-92
ISSN
0304-3940 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2066303625
Cited by
276
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 26
FWCI
15.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Research Foundation of Korea under the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (NRF-2014R1A2A1A10049727, NRF-2014R1A2A1A01005128)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Keywords
functional near-infrared spectroscopy, brain-computer interface, prefrontal cortex, primary motor cortex, motor imagery, mental arithmetic, three-class classification, linear discriminant analysis, continuous-wave NIRS
MeSH terms
Adult, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Imagination, Functional Laterality, Male, Motor Activity, Motor Cortex, Problem Solving, Discriminant Analysis, Linear Models, Prefrontal Cortex, Spectroscopy, Near-Infrared, Brain-Computer Interfaces

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