Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Human-AI Teaming Using Large Language Models: Boosting Brain-Computer Interfacing (BCI) and Brain Research

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ChatBCI shows human-AI teams can accelerate BCI research through an LLM assistant and shared knowledge base.

desk verdict Honest position-and-toolbox paper on human-AI teaming for BCI, but the central speed-up claim lacks any quantitative support and the code isn't released. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01451 v1 pith:X7V3AJ5L submitted 2024-12-30 cs.HC cs.AI

Maryna Kapitonova , Tonio Ball This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords human-AIteaminglargelanguagemodelsbrain-computerinterfaceEEGdecodingmotorimageryJanusiandesignprinciplessharedautonomyChatBCI
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the most promising near-term route to AI-assisted brain research is human-AI teaming rather than fully autonomous 'AI scientists,' and presents a concrete system, ChatBCI, built on that idea. The authors claim that by pairing a human expert with a large language model through a shared knowledge base and adjustable autonomy, they completed a real EEG motor-imagery decoding project on the BCI Competition IV 2a dataset substantially faster than a purely human approach could. The paper reports meaningful human-AI co-learning: the human corrected the AI's domain misconceptions, such as expecting a readiness potential in cue-based tasks, while the AI generated working CNN architectures and training loops with fewer than ten prompts. If this claim holds, it points to a practical division of labour between expert scientists and LLM agents in small-data, high-stakes fields like BCI research.

What carries the argument

The central object is ChatBCI, a Python toolbox for LLM-based human-AI collaboration in BCI research, together with its underlying set of seven Janusian design principles (speaking the same language, transparency and trust, shared knowledge base, joint integration of priorities, adaptive autonomy, accessibility from novice to expert, continuous evolution). The load-bearing mechanism is the interplay between the LLM (GPT-4o) and a persistent text-based knowledge base: the knowledge base keeps domain context and corrected expert insights in the LLM's context window, allowing flexible levels of shared autonomy—high AI autonomy for code generation and experiment running, higher human control for interpretation and critical decisions. The paper also uses the BCI Competition IV 2a dataset as the testbed, and compares its results against published baselines such as FBCSP and deep convnets.

What would settle it

Run a fresh ChatBCI session on the same BCI Competition IV 2a dataset without the human author's corrective inputs, and check whether the generated preprocessing and training scripts contain data leakage, improper epoching, or evaluation on training trials; if the pipeline silently leaks class information or fails to reproduce the reported above-chance accuracies when re-run independently, the central claim of trustworthy human-AI teaming would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a carefully structured human-AI workspace, instantiated as the ChatBCI toolbox and guided by seven Janusian design principles, enables effective scientific collaboration on BCI research tasks. Concretely, the authors report that GPT-4o, prompted through ChatBCI, generated the code for a convolutional neural network decoder and its within-subject training loop for the BCI Competition IV 2a motor-imagery dataset in fewer than ten prompts, reaching accuracies above chance but below state-of-the-art, and that human-AI interaction produced a correct interpretation of cue-evoked potentials, motor-related activity, and ocular artifacts in the ERP data. They state that this demonstrates meaningful human-AI co-learning and substantially faster collaborative completion of the research task than a purely human approach, with the shared knowledge base acting as the persistent memory for expert knowledge transfer.

Load-bearing premise

The demonstration assumes that GPT-4o generates correct and trustworthy preprocessing and training code, and that the authors' visual inspection of outputs plus the text knowledge base is enough to catch any errors; if the generated code were silently wrong, the reported success and the whole approach could be spurious.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BCI and EEG research projects can be accelerated by a human-AI team using a shared knowledge base, with the AI handling routine coding and the human handling interpretation.
  • Expert domain knowledge can be transferred to an LLM assistant through a persistent text knowledge base, enabling the AI to gradually improve on future sessions.
  • LLM-generated brain-signal decoders represent a new class of AutoML, where researchers can build and train deep networks without learning AutoML libraries.
  • The Janusian workspace concept can be extended beyond BCI to other neurotechnological and neuroscientific topics, and likely to other research fields with similar small-data challenges.
  • The idea-generation stage requires additional tools for novelty verification, since the LLM's initial research ideas, while plausible, largely replicated already-published topics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A stronger test would be a controlled comparison between this human-AI workflow and a purely human baseline on the same task, which the paper reports only anecdotally.
  • The knowledge-base approach could be supplemented by fine-tuning or memory mechanisms, which the paper itself names as future work; one testable extension is whether a session with a pre-populated knowledge base from prior projects yields higher decoding accuracy than a cold-start session.
  • The reported near-100% accuracies in the literature may be partly due to artifacts, as the ERP analysis suggests class-specific eye movements; a testable implication is that artifact-robust preprocessing would narrow the gap between simple and state-of-the-art decoders.
  • The same workspace could be benchmarked on other small-sample EEG datasets to see whether the acceleration generalizes beyond the specific 2a dataset.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that human-AI teaming, rather than fully autonomous AI scientists, is the most promising approach for BCI and neuroscience research, and it introduces seven Janusian design principles together with ChatBCI, a Python toolbox built around GPT-4o and a persistent, expert-curated knowledge base. The paper illustrates the approach on the BCI Competition IV 2a dataset, covering idea generation, exploratory data analysis and validation, LLM-generated CNN code, and a within-subject training loop. The headline claim is that this collaborative workflow achieved meaningful human-AI co-learning and 'substantially faster collaborative completion' of the BCI research task than would have been possible with a purely human approach. The manuscript is a qualitative case study: it reports narrative observations, a small number of illustrative figures, and the statement that the training loop required 'less than 10 prompts,' but it contains no quantitative timing data, no human-only baseline, no exact decoding accuracy values, and no external validation of the generated code or of knowledge transfer.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and important question—how to integrate LLM-based assistants into domain-specific scientific workflows—and its focus on EEG/BCI is well motivated by the field's small, heterogeneous datasets and heavy reliance on expert knowledge. The Janusian principles are thoughtful, and the idea of a persistent, expert-curated knowledge base is a practical mechanism for knowledge transfer. Credit should be given for providing an end-to-end demonstration rather than only a proposal, for acknowledging limitations such as the need for novelty verification and future fine-tuning/memory, and for stating the intention to release the toolbox. However, the evidence as presented is anecdotal: the central speed-up and co-learning claims are not supported by measurements, and the decoding results are not quantified. The contribution is therefore currently a promising case study rather than a validated system evaluation, and the load-bearing comparative claim would need to be either substantiated with data or substantially softened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 1; Section 3.2.2] The claim that ChatBCI enabled 'substantially faster collaborative completion' than a purely human approach is a comparative quantitative claim, but the manuscript provides no timing data, no log of human effort, no human-only baseline, and no estimate of the alternative. Section 3.2.2 reports that setting up the network and training loop required 'less than 10 prompts,' but the number of prompts is not a measure of human or wall-clock effort. To make the headline result verifiable, the authors should add measurements such as time per phase, number of expert interventions, and a comparison with a manual or human-only completion of the same task, or they should explicitly rephrase the claim as a qualitative observation.
  2. [Section 3.2.1; Section 3.2.2] The BCI project's success is not quantitatively characterized. The paper states that validation accuracies were 'clearly above chance' and 'substantially below previous reports' but gives no exact accuracy values, no per-subject results, no chance-level computation, and no comparison with published baselines. Reporting concrete metrics such as mean and standard deviation of accuracy, confusion matrices, and comparisons with, for example, FBCSP or EEGNet is necessary to support the claim that the LLM-generated decoder and training loop were correct and effective. In addition, the generated code is not included or validated; given the risk of subtle errors such as data leakage or improper epoching, the authors should describe or release the exact code and preprocessing pipeline used.
  3. [Section 3.2.1; Section 4] The 'co-learning' and 'knowledge transfer' claims rest on narrative examples in which the human expert corrected LLM outputs and on the authors' insertion of text documents into the knowledge base. The manuscript itself acknowledges in Section 3.2.1 that persistence of learning is currently implemented only as text documents and that fine-tuning and memory are future work. As it stands, there is no measure of knowledge transfer, such as a before/after comparison of LLM responses with and without the knowledge base, or an evaluation on a repeated task. The authors should either provide such an evaluation or weaken the co-learning/knowledge-transfer claim to a design goal.
  4. [Section 2; Sections 3 and 4] The seven Janusian design principles are presented as the foundation of the claimed teaming benefits, but the demonstration does not isolate their contribution. Without an ablation or at least a comparison to a non-Janusian LLM-assisted workflow, the principles remain a plausible design philosophy rather than an empirically supported cause of the reported outcomes. A small controlled comparison, even informal, would substantially strengthen the causal link between the design concept and the observed efficiency.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The caption for Figure 5 appears to be copied from Figure 4: it refers to 'Zoom-in from Fig. 3,' '4-Hz high-pass filter,' and arrow directions, while the figure is supposed to show CNN training results; please correct the caption.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 is titled '10 consecutively generated examples' but lists 12 rows; the numbering or the title should be corrected.
  3. [Section 3.2.1] There are several typographical errors, including 'elecited' and 'let to several interesting observations,' and Section 3 contains 'the the'; the manuscript would benefit from a careful copyedit.
  4. [Footnote 2] The toolbox is stated to be publicly available, but no repository URL or release details are given; please provide a link or state the planned availability.
  5. [Section 3.1] The paper honestly reports that the LLM-generated research ideas were all already addressed in the literature; this is a useful limitation, but the authors should explicitly discuss whether the value of the later phases depends on the human-specified research question rather than on the idea generation stage.
  6. [Sections 1 and 4] The term 'brain-grokking AI' is introduced without definition or operationalization; consider removing it or explaining what it is intended to mean beyond a general aspiration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the speed-up assertion is unsupported but not constructed from its inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a concept-and-use-case report rather than a derivation. The Janusian design principles are stated, the ChatBCI toolbox is described, and one BCI project is narrated as a demonstration. No quantity is fitted and later reported as a prediction, no claimed result is defined in terms of another claimed result, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation chain is invoked to rule out alternatives. The closest candidate for concern is the assertion in Section 1 that the team achieved 'substantially faster collaborative completion of our BCI research task than would have been possible with a purely human approach,' but the paper provides no timing data, no human-only baseline, and no quantitative comparison. That is an evidentiary weakness in the empirical claim, not a circular reduction: the claim is unverified rather than true by construction. Similarly, the fact that the authors designed the tool, populated its knowledge base, and judged its success makes the evaluation self-referential in a general sense, but it does not reproduce any of the enumerated circularity patterns because there is no specific equation, definition, or fitted parameter that collapses the conclusion into the premise. Accordingly, no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim does not fit any numeric parameter to data, so the free-parameter list is empty. What the paper does postulate: LLM competence, dataset validity, the correctness of the authors' ERP interpretation, the sufficiency of text-based knowledge transfer, and the value of the design principles. These are domain or ad hoc assumptions, not standard mathematical axioms.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The BCI Competition IV 2a dataset is valid, correctly loaded, and the standard 4 Hz high-pass filter requirement is accepted.
    The entire demonstration is built on this public dataset and the competition's artifact-removal convention, stated in Section 3.1.
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4o's generated code and analyses are of sufficient quality for the tasks, requiring only minor human correction.
    The central success claim depends on the LLM producing working preprocessing, CNN, and training code, as described in Section 3.2.2. This is asserted, not measured.
  • domain assumption The authors' interpretation of the ERP and artifact patterns (blink-saccade toward arrow tips) is correct.
    The key domain insight of the demo, Section 3.2.1, is based on the authors' expert reading of Figure 4 and is not confirmed by independent analysis or literature search.
  • ad hoc to paper Storing expert knowledge as text documents in the knowledge base is sufficient to transfer it to the LLM.
    The claimed co-learning mechanism depends on this design choice, described in Section 2 (Jiki foundation) and Section 3.2.1. No evaluation of retrieval effectiveness is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The Janusian design principles are sufficient to yield the claimed teaming benefits.
    The principles are introduced in Section 2 as the foundation of the framework, but their contribution is not isolated or tested.
invented entities (1)
  • brain-grokking AI
    purpose: A future AI system with deep, holistic understanding of human brain function that emerges from human-AI collaboration in workspaces like ChatBCI.
    Defined in the Conclusions as a vision ('a brain-grokking AI'); no mechanisms, architecture, or falsifiable predictions are given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Human-AI Teaming Using Large Language Models: Boosting Brain-Computer Interfacing (BCI) and Brain Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X7V3AJ5L

@misc{pith2026250101451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Human-AI Teaming Using Large Language Models: Boosting Brain-Computer Interfacing (BCI) and Brain Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X7V3AJ5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01451}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, there is an increasing interest in using artificial intelligence (AI) to automate aspects of the research process, or even autonomously conduct the full research cycle from idea generation, over data analysis, to composing and evaluation of scientific manuscripts. Examples of working AI scientist systems have been demonstrated for computer science tasks and running molecular biology labs. While some approaches aim for full autonomy of the scientific AI, others rather aim for leveraging human-AI teaming. Here, we address how to adapt such approaches for boosting Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) development, as well as brain research resp. neuroscience at large. We argue that at this time, a strong emphasis on human-AI teaming, in contrast to fully autonomous AI BCI researcher will be the most promising way forward. We introduce the collaborative workspaces concept for human-AI teaming based on a set of Janusian design principles, looking both ways, to the human as well as to the AI side. Based on these principles, we present ChatBCI, a Python-based toolbox for enabling human-AI collaboration based on interaction with Large Language Models (LLMs), designed for BCI research and development projects. We show how ChatBCI was successfully used in a concrete BCI project on advancing motor imagery decoding from EEG signals. Our approach can be straightforwardly extended to broad neurotechnological and neuroscientific topics, and may by design facilitate human expert knowledge transfer to scientific AI systems in general.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01451 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A conceptual illustration of AI-driven scientific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the Janusian Vision in designing human-AI workspaces, we embrace a dual-facing approach: one face directed toward empowering human expertise, and the other toward amplifying AI capabilities (DALL-E render￾ing of this idea). The ChatBCI toolbox2 is fully implemented in Python, deep learning functionality is relying on PyTorch; in the present work we use GPT-4o as underlying LLM OpenAI [2024]. It comprises the foll… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ERP waveforms across all trials of all subjects’ training data. Trial timing: The cue in the form of an arrow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (A) Zoom-in from Fig. 3. (B) Same with 4-Hz high-pass filter. (C) Direction of the arrows used as cues for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (A) Zoom-in from Fig. 3. (B) Same with 4-Hz high-pass filter. (C) Direction of the arrows used as cues for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. WorldWeaver: Generating Long-Horizon Video Worlds via Rich Perception

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    WorldWeaver reduces temporal drift in long-horizon video generation by jointly modeling RGB and depth perceptual conditions with segmented noise scheduling.

  2. Foundation Models for Cross-Domain EEG Analysis Application: A Survey

    cs.HC 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes EEG foundation-model research into five output-modality categories: native EEG, text, vision, audio, and multimodal fusion, with a claim to be the first such comprehensive taxonomy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [7]

    doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abc024

    ISSN 1741-2560, 1741-2552. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abc024. URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2552/abc024. Pierre W. Ferrez and José del R. Millán. Simultaneous Real-Time Detection of Motor Imagery and Error-Related Potentials for Improved BCI Accuracy

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abc024

  2. [9]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.17044. Mark A. Hanson, Pablo Gómez Barreiro, Paolo Crosetto, and Dan Brockington. The strain on scientific publishing. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(4):823–843, November

    arXiv

  3. [10]

    doi:10.1162/qss_a_00327

    ISSN 2641-3337. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00327. URL https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/5/4/823/124269/The-strain-on-scientific-publishing . 11 Human-AI Teaming for BCI and Brain Research PREPRINT International Science Council. More is not better: The developing crisis of scientific publishing. https://council. science/blog/more-is-not-better-the-developing-crisi...

    doi:10.1162/qss_a_00327

  4. [11]

    Jing Jin, Hao Sun, Ian Daly, Shurui Li, Chang Liu, Xingyu Wang, and Andrzej Cichocki

    Accessed: 2024-12-29. Jing Jin, Hao Sun, Ian Daly, Shurui Li, Chang Liu, Xingyu Wang, and Andrzej Cichocki. A Novel Classification Framework Using the Graph Representations of Electroencephalogram for Motor Imagery Based Brain-Computer Interface. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 30:20–29,

    work page 2024

  5. [13]

    ISBN 978-1-72811-990-8

    IEEE. ISBN 978-1-72811-990-8. doi:10.1109/EMBC44109.2020.9175344. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9175344/. Maryna Kapitonova, Philipp Kellmeyer, Simon V ogt, and Tonio Ball. A framework for preserving privacy and cybersecurity in brain-computer interfacing applications,

    arXiv 2020

  6. [14]

    Kazumi Kasahara, Charles Sayo DaSalla, Manabu Honda, and Takashi Hanakawa

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.09653. Kazumi Kasahara, Charles Sayo DaSalla, Manabu Honda, and Takashi Hanakawa. Neuroanatomical correlates of brain–computer interface performance. NeuroImage, 110:95–100, April

    arXiv

  7. [16]

    arXiv:2410.14453 [q-bio]

    URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14453. arXiv:2410.14453 [q-bio]. Demetres Kostas, Stéphane Aroca-Ouellette, and Frank Rudzicz. BENDR: Using Transformers and a Contrastive Self-Supervised Learning Task to Learn From Massive Amounts of EEG Data. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15:653659, June

    arXiv

  8. [17]

    doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.653659

    ISSN 1662-5161. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.653659. URL https://www.frontiersin. org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.653659/full. Vernon J Lawhern, Andrew J Solon, Nicholas R Waytowich, Stephen M Gordon, Chou P Hung, and Brent J Lance. Eegnet: a compact convolutional neural network for eeg-based brain–computer interfaces. Journal of neural engineering, 15(5):056013,

    work page arXiv 2021

Show all 31 references
  1. [19]

    ISBN 978-1-66548-547-0

    IEEE. ISBN 978-1-66548-547-0. doi:10.1109/MLSP55214.2022.9943479. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9943479/. Chen Lu, Chun Lu, Rebecca T. Lange, Jakob Foerster, Jeff Clune, and David Ha. The ai scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery. arXiv p...

    2022

  2. [20]

    doi:10.1016/j.future.2023.01.028

    ISSN 0167739X. doi:10.1016/j.future.2023.01.028. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167739X23000353. OpenAI. Gpt-4o model (december 30 version). https://openai.com/,

    2023 doi

  3. [21]

    Deepak Pathak, Pulkit Agrawal, Alexei A

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08560. Deepak Pathak, Pulkit Agrawal, Alexei A. Efros, and Trevor Darrell. Curiosity-driven exploration by self-supervised prediction,

    arXiv

  4. [24]

    doi:10.1038/s44286- 023-00002-4

    ISSN 2948-1198. doi:10.1038/s44286- 023-00002-4. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s44286-023-00002-4 . Simon D. Rihm, Jiaru Bai, Aleksandar Kondinski, Sebastian Mosbach, Jethro Akroyd, and Markus Kraft. Transforming research laboratories with connected digital twins. Nexus,...

    doi

  5. [25]

    doi:10.1016/j.ynexs.2024.100004

    ISSN 29501601. doi:10.1016/j.ynexs.2024.100004. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S2950160124000020. Baptiste Rozière, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Romain Sauvestre, Tal Remez, Jérémy Rapin, A...

    2024

  6. [26]

    Simanto Saha and Mathias Baumert

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.12950. Simanto Saha and Mathias Baumert. Intra- and Inter-subject Variability in EEG-Based Sensorimotor Brain Com- puter Interface: A Review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience , 13:87, January

    arXiv

  7. [28]

    Michael Tangermann, Klaus-Robert Müller, Ad Aertsen, Niels Birbaumer, Christoph Braun, Clemens Brunner, and Benjamin Blankertz

    URL http://biorxiv.org/lookup/ doi/10.1101/2024.11.11.623004. Michael Tangermann, Klaus-Robert Müller, Ad Aertsen, Niels Birbaumer, Christoph Braun, Clemens Brunner, and Benjamin Blankertz. Review of the bci competition iv. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6:55,

    2024 doi

  8. [29]

    Wolters, X

    C. Wolters, X. Yang, U. Schlichtmann, and T. Suzumura. Memory is all you need: An overview of compute-in-memory architectures for accelerating large language model inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08413,

    arXiv

  9. [30]

    Classification of motor imagery eeg signals based on data augmentation and convolutional neural networks

    Yuchen Xie and Stefan Oniga. Classification of motor imagery eeg signals based on data augmentation and convolutional neural networks. Sensors, 23(4):1932,

    1932

  10. [31]

    doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abed81

    ISSN 1741-2560, 1741-2552. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/abed81. URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1741-2552/abed81. 13

    doi

  11. [2005]

    doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1622

    ISSN 0962-8436, 1471-2970. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1622. URL https:// royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2005.1622. Xuemei Gu and Mario Krenn. Interesting scientific idea generation using knowledge graphs and llms: Evaluations with 100 research group leaders,

    2005

  12. [2008]

    BCI Competition 2008 – Graz Data Set A

    URL https://www.bbci.de/competition/iv/. BCI Competition 2008 – Graz Data Set A. Lili Duan, Jie Li, Hongfei Ji, Zilong Pang, Xuanci Zheng, Rongrong Lu, Maozhen Li, and Jie Zhuang. Zero- Shot Learning for EEG Classification in Motor Imagery-Based BCI System. IEEE Transactions o...

    2008

  13. [2012]

    doi:10.1177/1745691612459060

    ISSN 1745-6916, 1745-6924. doi:10.1177/1745691612459060. URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612459060. Tonio Ball, Andreas Schreiber, Bertram Feige, Martin Wagner, Carl H. Lücking, and Ralitza Kristeva-Feige. The role of higher-order motor areas in voluntary m...

    doi

  14. [2015]

    doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.055

    ISSN 10538119. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.055. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S1053811915000816. Roman Kessler, Alexander Enge, and Michael A. Skeide. How EEG preprocessing shapes decoding performance, December

    2015 doi

  15. [2017]

    Victoria Peterson, Dominik Wyser, Olivier Lambercy, Ruben Spies, and Roger Gassert

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.05363. Victoria Peterson, Dominik Wyser, Olivier Lambercy, Ruben Spies, and Roger Gassert. A penalized time-frequency band feature selection and classification procedure for improved motor intention decoding in multichannel EEG. Journal of Neural...

    arXiv

  16. [2018]

    Adversarial Training for the Adversarial Robustness of EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces

    Yunhuan Li, Xi Yu, Shujian Yu, and Badong Chen. Adversarial Training for the Adversarial Robustness of EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces. In 2022 IEEE 32nd International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP) , pages 1–6, Xi’an, China, August

    2022

  17. [2019]

    doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aaf046

    ISSN 1741-2560, 1741-2552. doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aaf046. URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2552/aaf046. Jacob T. Rapp, Bennett J. Bremer, and Philip A. Romero. Self-driving laboratories to autonomously navigate the protein fitness landscape. Nature Chemical E...

    doi

  18. [2020]

    doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2020.3027004

    ISSN 1534-4320, 1558-0210. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2020.3027004. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9207741/. Alexandre Défossez, Charlotte Caucheteux, Jérémy Rapin, Ori Kabeli, and Jean-Rémi King. Decoding speech perception from non-invasive brain recordings. Nature Machine I...

    2020

  19. [2021]

    ISBN 978-1-72818-616-0

    IEEE. ISBN 978-1-72818-616-0. doi:10.1109/IWCMC51323.2021.9498833. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9498833/. Maxence Faldor, Jenny Zhang, Antoine Cully, and Jeff Clune. Omni-epic: Open-endedness via models of human notions of interestingness with environments programm...

    2021

  20. [2022]

    doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3139095

    ISSN 1534-4320, 1558-0210. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3139095. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9664515/. Ce Ju, Dashan Gao, Ravikiran Mane, Ben Tan, Yang Liu, and Cuntai Guan. Federated Transfer Learning for EEG Signal Classification. In 2020 42nd Annual International Con...

    2021

  21. [2023]

    doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00714-5

    ISSN 2522-5839. doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00714-5. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00714-5 . Amira Echtioui, Wassim Zouch, Mohamed Ghorbel, Chokri Mhiri, and Habib Hamam. A Novel Ensemble Learning Approach for Classification of EEG Motor Imagery Signals. In 2021 Internat...

    doi

  22. [2024]

    Naishi Feng, Fo Hu, Hong Wang, and Mohamed Amin Gouda

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15568. Naishi Feng, Fo Hu, Hong Wang, and Mohamed Amin Gouda. Decoding of voluntary and involuntary upper-limb motor imagery based on graph fourier transform and cross-frequency coupling coefficients. Journal of Neural Engineering, 17(5):056043, October

    arXiv

  23. [5188]

    URL https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fncom.2019

    doi:10.3389/fncom.2019.00087. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fncom.2019. 00087/full. Robin Tibor Schirrmeister, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Lukas Dominik Josef Fiederer, Martin Glasstetter, Katharina Eggensperger, Michael Tangermann, Frank Hutter, Wolfram Burgar...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.