Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 590

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EEG dataset and OpenBMI toolbox for three BCI paradigms: an investigation into BCI illiteracy

Open access
Lee, Min-Ho, Kwon, O-Yeon, Kim, Yong-Jeong, Kim, Hong-Kyung, Lee, Young-Eun, Williamson, John, Fazli, Siamac, Lee, Seong-Whan·2019·GigaScience

Abstract

Background: Electroencephalography (EEG)-based brain-computer interface (BCI) systems are mainly divided into three major paradigms: motor imagery (MI), event-related potential (ERP), and steady-state visually evoked potential (SSVEP). Here, we present a BCI dataset that includes the three major BCI paradigms with a large number of subjects over multiple sessions. In addition, information about the psychological and physiological conditions of BCI users was obtained using a questionnaire, and task-unrelated parameters such as resting state, artifacts, and electromyography of both arms were also recorded. We evaluated the decoding accuracies for the individual paradigms and determined performance variations across both subjects and sessions. Furthermore, we looked for more general, severe cases of BCI illiteracy than have been previously reported in the literature. Results: Average decoding accuracies across all subjects and sessions were 71.1% (± 0.15), 96.7% (± 0.05), and 95.1% (± 0.09), and rates of BCI illiteracy were 53.7%, 11.1%, and 10.2% for MI, ERP, and SSVEP, respectively. Compared to the ERP and SSVEP paradigms, the MI paradigm exhibited large performance variations between both subjects and sessions. Furthermore, we found that 27.8% (15 out of 54) of users were universally BCI literate, i.e., they were able to proficiently perform all three paradigms. Interestingly, we found no universally illiterate BCI user, i.e., all participants were able to control at least one type of BCI system. Conclusions: Our EEG dataset can be utilized for a wide range of BCI-related research questions. All methods for the data analysis in this study are supported with fully open-source scripts that can aid in every step of BCI technology. Furthermore, our results support previous but disjointed findings on the phenomenon of BCI illiteracy.

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 · 10.1093/gigascience/giz002

Cites

7 of 7 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

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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 590

Metadata

Authors
Lee, M.-H., Kwon, O.-Y., Kim, Y.-J., Kim, H.-K., Lee, Y.-E., Williamson, J., Fazli, S., & Lee, S.-W.
Venue
GigaScience
Published
2019-01-30
Volume
8
Issue
5
ISSN
2047-217X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2912885887
Cited by
590
References
7
FWCI
22.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: EEG dataset and OpenBMI toolbox for three BCI paradigms: an investigation into BCI illiteracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/gigascience/giz002
The paper
Lee, M.-H., Kwon, O.-Y., Kim, Y.-J., Kim, H.-K., Lee, Y.-E., Williamson, J., Fazli, S., & Lee, S.-W. (2019). EEG dataset and OpenBMI toolbox for three BCI paradigms: an investigation into BCI illiteracy. GigaScience. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.