Cited by 192EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFree Will and Agency

Why standard brain-computer interface (BCI) training protocols should be changed: an experimental study

Open access
Jeunet, Camille, Jahanpour, Emilie, Lotte, Fabien·2016·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

Objective. While promising, electroencephaloraphy based brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) are barely used due to their lack of reliability: 15% to 30% of users are unable to control a BCI. Standard training protocols may be partly responsible as they do not satisfy recommendations from psychology. Our main objective was to determine in practice to what extent standard training protocols impact users’ motor imagery based BCI (MI-BCI) control performance. Approach. We performed two experiments. The first consisted in evaluating the efficiency of a standard BCI training protocol for the acquisition of non-BCI related skills in a BCI-free context, which enabled us to rule out the possible impact of BCIs on the training outcome. Thus, participants ( N = 54) were asked to perform simple motor tasks. The second experiment was aimed at measuring the correlations between motor tasks and MI-BCI performance. The ten best and ten worst performers of the first study were recruited for an MI-BCI experiment during which they had to learn to perform two MI tasks. We also assessed users’ spatial ability and pre-training μ rhythm amplitude, as both have been related to MI-BCI performance in the literature. Main results. Around 17% of the participants were unable to learn to perform the motor tasks, which is close to the BCI illiteracy rate. This suggests that standard training protocols are suboptimal for skill teaching. No correlation was found between motor tasks and MI-BCI performance. However, spatial ability played an important role in MI-BCI performance. In addition, once the spatial ability covariable had been controlled for, using an ANCOVA, it appeared that participants who faced difficulty during the first experiment improved during the second while the others did not. Significance. These studies suggest that (1) standard MI-BCI training protocols are suboptimal for skill teaching, (2) spatial ability is confirmed as impacting on MI-BCI performance, and (3) when faced with difficult pre-training, subjects seemed to explore more strategies and therefore learn better.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1741-2560/13/3/036024

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jeunet, C., Jahanpour, E., & Lotte, F.
Affiliations
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
  • Université de Bordeaux (FR)
  • Centre Inria de l'université de Bordeaux (FR)
Corresponding author
Jeunet, Camille
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2016-05-11
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
036024
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2365862230
Cited by
192
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4
FWCI
11.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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 › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
brain-computer interface, motor imagery, spatial ability, motor skill learning, BCI illiteracy, mu rhythm, EEG-based control, learning strategies
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Imagination, Learning, Male, Motor Skills, Psychomotor Performance, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Space Perception, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, Brain-Computer Interfaces, Spatial Navigation

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