Cited by 44EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyEmotion and Mood Recognition

A Generic Transferable EEG Decoder for Online Detection of Error Potential in Target Selection

Open access
Bhattacharyya, Saugat, Konar, Amit, Tibarewala, D. N., Hayashibe, Mitsuhiro·2017·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

Reliable detection of error from electroencephalography (EEG) signals as feedback while performing a discrete target selection task across sessions and subjects has a huge scope in real-time rehabilitative application of Brain-computer Interfacing (BCI). Error Related Potentials (ErrP) are EEG signals which occur when the participant observes an erroneous feedback from the system. ErrP holds significance in such closed-loop system, as BCI is prone to error and we need an effective method of systematic error detection as feedback for correction. In this paper, we have proposed a novel scheme for online detection of error feedback directly from the EEG signal in a transferable environment (i.e., across sessions and across subjects). For this purpose, we have used a P300-speller dataset available on a BCI competition website. The task involves the subject to select a letter of a word which is followed by a feedback period. The feedback period displays the letter selected and, if the selection is wrong, the subject perceives it by the generation of ErrP signal. Our proposed system is designed to detect ErrP present in the EEG from new independent datasets, not involved in its training. Thus, the decoder is trained using EEG features of 16 subjects for single-trial classification and tested on 10 independent subjects. The decoder designed for this task is an ensemble of linear discriminant analysis, quadratic discriminant analysis, and logistic regression classifier. The performance of the decoder is evaluated using accuracy, F1-score, and Area Under the Curve metric and the results obtained is 73.97, 83.53, and 73.18%, respectively.

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 · 10.3389/fnins.2017.00226

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Calibration-free cross-subject ErrP classification has been demonstrated with generalized LDA, an xDAWN+RG pipeline with a support vector machine classifier, ensemble classifiers, and online PCA-based pipelines, though without inherent interpretability.

    “Calibration-free cross-subject ErrP classification has been demonstrated with generalized LDA [16], an xDAWN+RG pipeline with a support vector machine classifier [17], ensemble classifiers [18], and online PCA-based pipelines [19], though without inherent interpretability.”

    From ERP-XTTN: interpretable prototype-guided cross-attention for cross-subject ERP classification (2026) · cites this paper as [18]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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: 3

  1. Barachant, 2015, Winning Solution at the BCI Challenge
  2. Barrack, 2015, BCI challenge: error potential detection with cross-subject generalisation
  3. Perrin, 2011, Detecting and interpreting responses to feedback in BCI, 116

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhattacharyya, S., Konar, A., Tibarewala, D. N., & Hayashibe, M.
Affiliations
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
  • Jadavpur University (IN)
Corresponding author
Bhattacharyya, Saugat
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2017-05-02
Volume
11
Pages
226-226
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2610581658
Cited by
43
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
European Commission (2012-2648/001-001-EM)
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
error-related potentials, EEG decoding, brain-computer interface, error detection, P300 speller, ensemble classifiers, linear discriminant analysis, quadratic discriminant analysis, logistic regression, single-trial classification, rehabilitation

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