Cited by 68EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyEmotion and Mood Recognition

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EEG Dataset for RSVP and P300 Speller Brain-Computer Interfaces

Open access

Abstract

As attention to deep learning techniques has grown, many researchers have attempted to develop ready-to-go brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) that include automatic processing pipelines. However, to do so, a large and clear dataset is essential to increase the model’s reliability and performance. Accordingly, our electroencephalogram (EEG) dataset for rapid serial visual representation (RSVP) and P300 speller may contribute to increasing such BCI research. We validated our dataset with respect to features and accuracy. For the RSVP, the participants (N = 50) achieved about 92% mean target detection accuracy. At the feature level, we observed notable ERPs (at 315 ms in the RSVP; at 262 ms in the P300 speller) during target events compared to non-target events. Regarding P300 speller performance, the participants (N = 55) achieved about 92% mean accuracy. In addition, P300 speller performance over trial repetitions up to 15 was explored. The presented dataset could potentially improve P300 speller applications. Further, it may be used to evaluate feature extraction and classification algorithm effectively, such as for cross-subjects/cross-datasets, and even for the cross-paradigm BCI model.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/s41597-022-01509-w

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • The stimulus frequency differs between the two paradigms: RSVP usually displays with a refresh rate of 5-10 Hz, while the P300 speller flashes for 125 ms and turns off for 62.5 ms until the next sequence flashes.

    “Secondly, the stimulus frequency is different for the two paradigms - the RSVP usually displays with a refresh rate of 5-10 Hz, while the P300 speller flashes for 125 ms and turns off for 62.5 ms until the next sequence flashes [18].”

    From A Cascade xDAWN EEGNet Structure for Unified Visual-Evoked Related Potential Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Methods section on RSVP reports a 10 Hz refresh rate for this study, but does not establish that RSVP usually runs at 5–10 Hz. The Methods section on the P300 speller states that each stimulus sequence flashed for 125 ms and was off for 62.5 ms before the next sequence flashed. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Notable ERPs emerge at 315 ms in the RSVP paradigm whereas occur at 262 ms in the row-column-based P300 speller paradigm during target events compared to nontarget events.

    “As mentioned, notable ERPs emerge at 315 ms in the RSVP paradigm whereas occur at 262 ms in the row-column-based P300 speller paradigm during target events compared to nontarget events [18].”

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bougrain, L., Saavedra, C. & Ranta, R. Finally, what is the best filter for P300 detection? in TOBI Workshop lll- Tools for Brain-Computer Interaction - 2012 (2012).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Won, K., Kwon, M., Ahn, M., & Jun, S. C.
Affiliations
  • Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (KR)
  • Korea Testing Laboratory (KR)
  • Handong Global University (KR)
Corresponding author
Jun, Sung Chan
Venue
Scientific Data
Published
2022-07-08
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
388-388
ISSN
2052-4463 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4284888462
Cited by
68
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 3
Type
data paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Data (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
brain-computer interface, P300 speller, rapid serial visual presentation, EEG dataset, event-related potentials, target detection, feature extraction, classification
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Event-Related Potentials, P300, 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