Cited by 412EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyEmotion and Mood Recognition

BCILAB: a platform for brain–computer interface development

Open access
Kothe, Christian Andreas, Makeig, Scott·2013·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The past two decades have seen dramatic progress in our ability to model brain signals recorded by electroencephalography, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, etc., and to derive real-time estimates of user cognitive state, response, or intent for a variety of purposes: to restore communication by the severely disabled, to effect brain-actuated control and, more recently, to augment human-computer interaction. Continuing these advances, largely achieved through increases in computational power and methods, requires software tools to streamline the creation, testing, evaluation and deployment of new data analysis methods. APPROACH: Here we present BCILAB, an open-source MATLAB-based toolbox built to address the need for the development and testing of brain-computer interface (BCI) methods by providing an organized collection of over 100 pre-implemented methods and method variants, an easily extensible framework for the rapid prototyping of new methods, and a highly automated framework for systematic testing and evaluation of new implementations. MAIN RESULTS: To validate and illustrate the use of the framework, we present two sample analyses of publicly available data sets from recent BCI competitions and from a rapid serial visual presentation task. We demonstrate the straightforward use of BCILAB to obtain results compatible with the current BCI literature. SIGNIFICANCE: The aim of the BCILAB toolbox is to provide the BCI community a powerful toolkit for methods research and evaluation, thereby helping to accelerate the pace of innovation in the field, while complementing the existing spectrum of tools for real-time BCI experimentation, deployment and use.

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 · 10.1088/1741-2560/10/5/056014

Cites

74 of 74 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?

  • The development of methods for enabling feature explainability from deep neural networks has been proposed as an essential component of a robust model validation procedure.

    “The development of methods for enabling feature explainability from deep neural networks has become an active research area over the past few years, and has been proposed as an essential component of a robust model validation procedure, to ensure that the classification performance is being driven by relevant features as opposed to noise or artifacts in the data [16, 93-99].”

    From EEGNet: a compact convolutional neural network for EEG-based brain-computer interfaces (2018) · cites this paper as [93]

    Section 4.3.2 discusses constraining features to reduce overfitting to spurious patterns, and section 3.5 describes a tool for visualizing model parameters. The paper does not propose feature explainability for deep neural networks as an essential part of model validation. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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. Jaakkola T S and Jordan M I 1997 A variational approach to Bayesian logistic regression models and their extensions Proc. 6th Int. Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (Fort Lauderdale, FL, Jan. 1997)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kothe, C. A., & Makeig, S.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Kothe, Christian Andreas
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2013-08-28
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
056014
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2011004955
Cited by
412
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 16
FWCI
10.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Technische Universität Berlin
  • University of California, San Diego
  • Army Research Laboratory (W911-NF-10-2-0022, W911NF, W911NF-10)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
brain-computer interface, open-source software toolkit, MATLAB, rapid prototyping, rapid serial visual presentation, EEG signal processing, functional near-infrared spectroscopy
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Automation, Calibration, Computer Graphics, Computer Systems, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Imagination, Models, Neurological, Neurosciences, Photic Stimulation, Prosthesis Design, Software, User-Computer Interface, Reproducibility of Results, Artifacts, 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