Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Bridging BCI and Communications: A MIMO Framework for EEG-to-ECoG Wireless Channel Modeling

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A MIMO channel model for the brain link cuts EEG reconstruction error 15 percent

desk verdict Clean MIMO estimation formulation but the headline 15% improvement over LS is mathematically impossible under the stated in-sample MSE metric; the empirical claims need a proper train/test split. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10786 v1 pith:Y5IGDRVU submitted 2025-05-16 eess.SP cs.HC

Jiaheng Wang , Zhenyu Wang , Tianheng Xu , Yuan Si , Ang Li , Ting Zhou , Xi Zhao , Honglin Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.HC
keywords brain-computerinterfaceMIMOchannelestimationECoG-to-EEGwirelessbrainspatial-temporalregularizationADMMfrequencyresolutiontrade-offsimultaneousEEG-ECoGrecordings
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 path from intracranial ECoG signals to scalp EEG electrodes can be treated as a frequency-division multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) wireless channel, with ECoG arrays as transmitters and EEG electrodes as receivers. It proposes STARE, a channel estimator that adds spatial smoothness and temporal continuity constraints derived from neurophysiology to the usual data-fitting objective, and solves the resulting problem with an alternating-direction method. Using simultaneous macaque ECoG and EEG recordings, the paper reports that STARE lowers reconstruction mean-squared error by about 15 percent relative to least-squares and MMSE estimators, and that reconstruction error follows a U-shaped curve in the segmentation symbol length, with an optimum near 33,000 samples. If true, this would let communication-theoretic tools such as channel estimation, equalization, and modulation be applied to brain-computer interfaces.

What carries the argument

The central object is the frequency-division MIMO channel matrix $H_k^{(f)}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times P}$ mapping $P$ ECoG sources to $N$ EEG electrodes at frequency $f$ in frame $k$. STARE (Spatial-Temporal Adaptive Regularized Estimation) is the algorithm that estimates it: a single objective with three terms — the Frobenius-norm data fit $\|Y-HX\|_F^2$, a spatial smoothness penalty expressed through the graph Laplacian $L=D-A$ of the electrode adjacency graph, and a temporal continuity penalty $\|H_k-H_{k-1}\|_F^2$. The two regularizers are coupled through $H$, so the paper introduces an auxiliary variable $G$ and solves with ADMM, yielding closed-form $H$ and $G$ updates per iteration and carrying the previous frame's estimate forward as initialization. This machinery is what lets physiological priors be injected into channel estimation.

What would settle it

Use the estimated channel from one macaque session to predict EEG from held-out ECoG of another session or another animal; if reconstruction MSE is no better than using a channel estimated from shuffled electrode labels or a constant baseline, the MIMO channel model is not capturing real structure. An even more direct check is to compare STARE's prediction against a nonlinear reconstruction that allows cross-frequency or time-varying coupling on the same data: if the nonlinear model wins by a large margin, the linear instantaneous-mixing assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a frequency-division MIMO model describes the brain channel: after segmenting simultaneous ECoG and EEG into symbols and taking discrete Fourier transforms, each frequency bin obeys $Y_k^{(f)}=H_k^{(f)}X_k^{(f)}+N$, where $X$ is the ECoG transmit matrix, $Y$ the EEG receive matrix, and $H$ the unknown channel matrix. The contribution is the STARE estimator, which minimizes the squared reconstruction error plus two neurophysiology-informed penalties: a spatial-smoothness term over neighboring electrodes written with a graph Laplacian, and a temporal-continuity term tying successive frames. Because the constraints couple the unknowns, the paper solves the objective with ADMM and gives closed-form updates for each block. On a public simultaneous macaque EEG-ECoG dataset, STARE achieves an average MSE of 5.44 across symbol lengths, versus 6.44 for LS and 6.42 for MMSE, i.e. reductions of 15.4 percent and 15.3 percent; at the optimal symbol length of 33,000 samples the average MSE reaches 0.55. The reported U-shaped dependence of MSE on symbol length is presented as evidence of a trade-off between frequency resolution and temporal stationarity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that scalp EEG is a linear, frequency-by-frequency mixture of ECoG signals plus noise — $Y=HX+N$ with $H$ constant within each short segment — so that a single channel matrix per frequency and frame captures the physiology; if volume conduction is nonlinear or the two recordings are not a clean transmitter-receiver pair, the estimated $H$ is not a physical channel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Brain channel matrices could be used as a forward model for BCI decoders, replacing ad hoc spatial filters with communication-style equalization.
  • The symbol-length trade-off gives a concrete rule for choosing segmentation windows: near 33,000 samples at 1 kHz in this setup, balancing spectral resolution against stationarity.
  • The framework turns EEG reconstruction error into a channel-estimation metric, so future BCI algorithms can be benchmarked against LS and MMSE baselines.
  • Spatial and temporal regularization, if validated, provides a principled way to suppress physiological artifacts without discarding data.
  • The same estimation pipeline could support future human ECoG-EEG recordings if simultaneous data become available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear MIMO model holds, the estimated channel matrices encode volume-conduction geometry and might be invertible for source-localization or tissue-anomaly detection, an application the paper does not develop.
  • Because the reported MSE is computed on the same data used to fit the channel, an out-of-sample or cross-session validation would be the natural next test; if it passes, the channel estimate is a genuine transfer function.
  • The per-frequency independence assumption suggests an immediate extension: a block-diagonal or coupled-frequency model could capture cross-frequency neural interactions that the current framework treats as noise.
  • The macaque results justify but do not guarantee human transfer; the same pipeline could be applied directly to any future simultaneous human ECoG-EEG recording.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a frequency-division MIMO framework for modeling the 'brain wireless channel' from intracranial ECoG to scalp EEG, formalized as Y = H X + N. It introduces STARE, a regularized estimator with spatial and temporal smoothness penalties solved via ADMM, and validates it on the public MDR macaque dataset. The evaluation metric is the reconstruction error between simulated EEG (estimated channel times ECoG) and recorded EEG (Eq. 13). The paper reports 15.4% and 15.3% lower MSE than LS and MMSE, respectively, and claims a U-shaped trade-off between frequency resolution and temporal stability with an optimal symbol length L = 33000 samples.

Significance. The conceptual analogy to MIMO communication and the coherent ADMM formulation are strengths, as is the use of a public dataset and the explicit statement of a falsifiable model. However, the central empirical claim is unsupported: the reported improvement over LS is inconsistent with the in-sample reconstruction metric, and the symbol-length trade-off is validated circularly. The mathematical derivation of the spatial penalty also contains an error. If the evaluation were corrected with proper train/test separation and a valid channel-error proxy, the framework could be of interest to the BCI and communications communities, but as presented the results do not establish the claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Eq. (13), Fig. 4] The reported 15.4% improvement of STARE over LS is incompatible with the described evaluation protocol. For a fixed frame k and frequency f, the LS estimator minimizes exactly the data term \|Y_k - H_k X_k\|_F^2; since Eq. (3) defines STARE's objective as that same term plus nonnegative spatial and temporal penalties, any STARE solution has a data term no smaller than the LS minimum. Because Eq. (13) computes that same data term on the data used for estimation, STARE cannot achieve a strictly lower MSE than LS. The manuscript reports the opposite, which implies an undocumented train/test split, a different evaluation rule, or an error in the simulation pipeline; none of these is described.
  2. [Section III.B, Figs. 3 and 4] The optimal symbol length L_opt is selected as the minimum of the in-sample MSE curve (Fig. 3), and this same curve is then presented as 'the precise alignment between empirical evidence and theoretical analyses' validating the U-shaped trade-off. This is circular: the MSE curve is used both to define L_opt and to confirm that L_opt is optimal. A falsifiable test would require deriving L_opt from the stated mechanisms (frequency resolution and temporal stationarity) and evaluating it on held-out data or with an independent metric.
  3. [Section II.B, Eq. (4)] The identity converting the edge-wise spatial penalty to a trace expression is incorrect. For an undirected graph with Laplacian L = D - A (which should be N x N, where N is the number of EEG electrodes, not P x P as stated), the correct identity is \sum_{(i,j)\in E} \|H_k(i,:)-H_k(j,:)\|_F^2 = 2 \mathrm{Tr}(H_k^\top L H_k). The expression in Eq. (4), 2 \mathrm{Tr}(H_k^\top L^\top L H_k), penalizes squared differences of the Laplacian and does not correspond to the physiologically motivated neighborhood-similarity constraint. Consequently, the ADMM updates in Eqs. (5), (9), and (10) do not implement the penalty described in Eq. (3).
  4. [Sections II.C and III] The experimental description omits values needed for reproduction: the number of frames K, symbols per frame M, the regularization parameters \mu, \nu, \rho, the ADMM iteration count t_max, the initialization of H_0 for the first frame, and the exact MMSE implementation (noise covariance and channel correlation assumptions). The manuscript also does not state whether any held-out data were used. Without these, the numerical comparisons in Figs. 3 and 4 cannot be independently verified, and the reported MSE values (5.44 vs 6.44 and 6.42) are not reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title states 'EEG-to-ECoG' but the model and experiments treat ECoG as the transmitting source and EEG as the receiving array; the direction in the title should be 'ECoG-to-EEG'.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The text contains grammatical errors, e.g., 'This work establish' and 'the complex physiology of brain challenges'; these should be corrected throughout.
  3. [References] References [16] and [17] are listed but never cited in the text; the macaque-similarity paragraph cites only [14], [15], [18], and [19].
  4. [Fig. 3] The description of Fig. 3 does not specify axis labels or units; stating the time durations corresponding to the sample lengths (e.g., 13, 33, 49 seconds at 1 kHz) would improve readability.
  5. [Notation] The symbol M is used for the number of symbols per frame and also appears in the acronyms MSE and MMSE; while context makes the meaning clear, the repeated letter in Eq. (2) and in the evaluation metric may confuse readers.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The claimed 15.4% MSE improvement reduces to an in-sample fit: the evaluation metric is the same residual the estimator minimizes, and the U-shaped trade-off is read off the same fitted curve.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.A, Eq. (13); Section III.C, Fig. 4]
    "To circumvent this limitation, first, our approach generates simulated EEG signals through ˆY(f) k = ˆH(f) k X(f) k using the estimated channel matrix ˆH(f) k . The reconstruction error on frequency f is then calculated as MSE = ||Y(f)true k − ˆY(f) k ||2 F, where Y(f)true k is recorded EEG."

    The estimated channel ˆH is fitted to Y and X through Eq. (3), whose first term is exactly 1/2 ||Y − HX||^2_F, and the evaluation metric in Eq. (13) is the same residual on the same data. No train/test split is described. Under this protocol, LS minimizes that residual, so STARE's objective, which adds nonnegative spatial and temporal penalties, cannot achieve a strictly smaller in-sample reconstruction error than LS. The reported 15.4% improvement over LS is therefore not an independent prediction but an artifact of the fitting objective, or of an undocumented evaluation protocol.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section III.B, Fig. 3]
    "In experiments, we vary L. Fig. 3 delineates the relationship between symbol length and channel estimation performance. Here, for each symbol length, we calculate the MSE at every frequency point across all frames using the formula (13) ... Notably, the global minimum MSE Avg = 0.55 occurs at Lopt = 33000 ... The precise alignment between empirical evidence and theoretical analyses substantiates the applicability of information theory in modeling neural signal transmissions."

    The claimed U-shaped trade-off between frequency resolution and temporal stability is not specified as a quantitative a priori prediction with a predicted optimal symbol length. Instead, the optimal region and the global minimum are read off the same MSE curve that is then said to validate the theoretical analysis. Because both the 'empirical evidence' and the 'theoretical prediction' are derived from the same fitted reconstruction error, the confirmation reduces to describing the fitted curve.

full rationale

The ADMM derivation in Section II.C is algebraic and not circular: the closed-form updates follow from the augmented Lagrangian and are standard. The circularity is concentrated in the empirical validation. The paper explicitly acknowledges that ground-truth brain channel parameters are unavailable, so it substitutes reconstruction error on the recorded EEG as the performance metric. But the estimated channel is fitted to those same EEG data, making the 'simulated EEG' a fitted output, not a prediction. Moreover, since LS minimizes the exact residual used as the metric, STARE's reported 15.4% improvement over LS is mathematically impossible under the stated protocol, indicating either an undisclosed train/test split, a different comparison protocol, or an error in the experimental pipeline. The symbol-length trade-off is similarly validated by locating the optimum on the same MSE curve rather than by an independent prediction. Self-citations to the authors' prior survey are used for framing the BCI-inspired communications area but are not load-bearing for the MIMO model or the ADMM solution, so they do not add to the score. Overall, the central performance claim partially reduces to the fitting objective, warranting a score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the linear mixing model, the stationarity assumption, and the treatment of reconstruction error as validation. The free parameters are mostly undisclosed or chosen from the same data. No new physical entity is proposed beyond the channel abstraction.

free parameters (6)
  • mu (spatial regularization weight) = not reported
    Controls the spatial smoothness penalty in Eq. 3; no value or selection procedure is given.
  • nu (temporal regularization weight) = not reported
    Controls temporal continuity penalty; not reported.
  • rho (ADMM penalty) = not reported
    Penalty parameter in Eq. 6; not reported.
  • t_max (ADMM iterations) = not reported
    Stopping criterion for ADMM; not reported.
  • symbol length L_opt = 33000 samples
    Selected as the global minimum of the same MSE curve used to validate the U-shape (Fig. 3); no independent selection criterion.
  • frame size M = not reported
    Number of symbols per frame determines how many observations are available per channel estimate; not reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Linear instantaneous frequency-domain mixing: Y = H X + N.
    Assumed in Eq. (2)-(3) and throughout; no validation against nonlinear or delayed propagation.
  • domain assumption Channel stationarity within a symbol and slow variation across frames.
    Required by the temporal continuity constraint and the initialization H_k(0)=H_{k-1} in Section II.C.
  • domain assumption Adjacent electrodes have similar channel responses.
    Spatial smoothness constraint in Eq. (3)-(4); assumed from tissue conduction overlap.
  • ad hoc to paper In-sample reconstruction MSE is a valid proxy for channel estimation accuracy.
    Section III.A, Eq. (13), invoked because ground-truth H is unavailable.
  • domain assumption Macaque anatomy and physiology are representative of humans for this channel.
    Section III.A, citing refs [14], [15], [18], [19]; no human validation.
invented entities (1)
  • ECoG-to-EEG brain wireless channel H(f)
    purpose: Represents neural signal propagation as a MIMO communication channel; the quantity estimated by STARE.
    No direct or independent measurement exists; H is inferred only from the assumed linear model on the same data used for validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging BCI and Communications: A MIMO Framework for EEG-to-ECoG Wireless Channel Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5IGDRVU

@misc{pith2026250510786,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging BCI and Communications: A MIMO Framework for EEG-to-ECoG Wireless Channel Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5IGDRVU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10786}
}
read the original abstract

As a method to connect human brain and external devices, Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are receiving extensive research attention. Recently, the integration of communication theory with BCI has emerged as a popular trend, offering potential to enhance system performance and shape next-generation communications. A key challenge in this field is modeling the brain wireless communication channel between intracranial electrocorticography (ECoG) emitting neurons and extracranial electroencephalography (EEG) receiving electrodes. However, the complex physiology of brain challenges the application of traditional channel modeling methods, leaving relevant research in its infancy. To address this gap, we propose a frequency-division multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) estimation framework leveraging simultaneous macaque EEG and ECoG recordings, while employing neurophysiology-informed regularization to suppress noise interference. This approach reveals profound similarities between neural signal propagation and multi-antenna communication systems. Experimental results show improved estimation accuracy over conventional methods while highlighting a trade-off between frequency resolution and temporal stability determined by signal duration. This work establish a conceptual bridge between neural interfacing and communication theory, accelerating synergistic developments in both fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10786 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The conceptual diagram of brain channel. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The illustration of FD-MIMO. ECoG recordings in non-human primates. Our approach iden￾tifies deep similarities between neural signal propagation pathways and multi-antenna communication systems, thereby extending wireless channel modeling to biological neural sys￾tems. Additionally, traditional channel estimation methods fail to leverage brain physiological priors and address the complex noise in neural signal propa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The relationship between the symbol length and the MSE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The MSEAvg at the corresponding symbol length for three methods: STARE, LS, and MMSE. At the far end of the axis, the average MSE across all symbol lengths is presented: 5.44 for STARE, compared to 6.44 for LS and 6.42 for MMSE. humans. Consequently, macaque experiment…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey on brain-computer interface-inspired communications: opportunities and challenges,

    H. Hu, Z. Wang, X. Zhao, R. Li, A. Li, Y . Si, J. Wang, T. Zhou, and T. Xu, “A survey on brain-computer interface-inspired communications: opportunities and challenges,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tuto- rials, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Neurosciences and wireless networks: The potential of brain-type communications and their applications,

    R. C. Moioli, P. H. Nardelli, M. T. Barros, W. Saad, A. Hekmatmanesh, P. E. G. Silva, A. S. de Sena, M. Dzaferagic, H. Siljak, W. Van Leekwijck et al., “Neurosciences and wireless networks: The potential of brain-type communications and their applications,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1599–1621, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Guest editorial: Brain-computer-interface inspired communications,

    H. Hu, X. Chen, and T. Jiang, “Guest editorial: Brain-computer-interface inspired communications,”China Communications, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. iii–v, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Home use of a percutaneous wireless intracortical brain-computer inter- face by individuals with tetraplegia,

    J. D. Simeral, T. Hosman, J. Saab, S. N. Flesher, M. Vilela, B. Franco, J. N. Kelemen, D. M. Brandman, J. G. Ciancibello, P. G. Rezaiiet al., “Home use of a percutaneous wireless intracortical brain-computer inter- face by individuals with tetraplegia,”IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 2313–2325, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Building an organic computing device with multiple interconnected brains,

    M. Pais-Vieira, G. Chiuffa, M. Lebedev, A. Yadav, and M. A. Nicolelis, “Building an organic computing device with multiple interconnected brains,”Scientific reports, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    A vision of 6g wireless systems: Applications, trends, technologies, and open research problems,

    W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Chen, “A vision of 6g wireless systems: Applications, trends, technologies, and open research problems,”IEEE network, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 134–142, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Interface, interaction, and in- telligence in generalized brain–computer interfaces,

    X. Gao, Y . Wang, X. Chen, and S. Gao, “Interface, interaction, and in- telligence in generalized brain–computer interfaces,”Trends in cognitive sciences, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 671–684, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Brain computer interface: control signals review,

    R. A. Ramadan and A. V . Vasilakos, “Brain computer interface: control signals review,”Neurocomputing, vol. 223, pp. 26–44, 2017

    2017

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    Noise removal methods on ambulatory eeg: A survey,

    S. Johari, G. N. Meedinti, R. Delhibabu, and D. Joshi, “Noise removal methods on ambulatory eeg: A survey,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02437, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    T. L. Marzetta, E. G. Larsson, H. Yang, and H. Q. Ngo,Fundamentals of massive MIMO. Cambridge University Press, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Aneeg: leveraging deep learning for effective artifact removal in eeg data,

    B. Kalita, N. Deb, and D. Das, “Aneeg: leveraging deep learning for effective artifact removal in eeg data,”Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 24234, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Research on noise suppression method of brain information perception system,

    Y . Liu, T. Hong, S. Zhang, Y . Dong, and X. Zhao, “Research on noise suppression method of brain information perception system,” in2022 2nd International Conference on Electronic Information Engineering and Computer Technology (EIECT). IEEE, 2022, pp. 54–57

    2022

  5. [13]

    A survey on some recent developments of alternating direction method of multipliers,

    D.-R. Han, “A survey on some recent developments of alternating direction method of multipliers,”Journal of the Operations Research Society of China, pp. 1–52, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Ct anatomy and normal radiography of the skull of the rhesus monkey (macaca mulatta),

    A. R. Vajhi, S. Soroori, R. Soflaei, O. Zehtabvar, S. H. M. Tonekabony, and I. Memarian, “Ct anatomy and normal radiography of the skull of the rhesus monkey (macaca mulatta),”Veterinary Medicine and Science, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 2278–2293, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Resolving the mesoscopic missing link: Biophysical modeling of eeg from cortical columns in primates,

    B. Herrera, J. A. Westerberg, M. S. Schall, A. Maier, G. F. Woodman, J. D. Schall, and J. J. Riera, “Resolving the mesoscopic missing link: Biophysical modeling of eeg from cortical columns in primates,” NeuroImage, vol. 263, p. 119593, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    An interspecies comparative study of invasive electrophysiological functional connectivity,

    K. Casimo, L. H. Levinson, S. Zanos, C. A. Gkogkidis, T. Ball, E. Fetz, K. E. Weaver, and J. G. Ojemann, “An interspecies comparative study of invasive electrophysiological functional connectivity,”Brain and Behavior, vol. 7, no. 12, p. e00863, 2017. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FIL...

    2017

  9. [17]

    Connec- tivity reveals homology between the visual systems of the human and macaque brains. front neurosci 17: 1207340,

    X. Lu, Q. Wang, X. Li, G. Wang, Y . Chen, X. Li, and H. Li, “Connec- tivity reveals homology between the visual systems of the human and macaque brains. front neurosci 17: 1207340,” 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    On the origin of event-related potentials indexing covert attentional selection during visual search,

    J. Y . Cohen, R. P. Heitz, J. D. Schall, and G. F. Woodman, “On the origin of event-related potentials indexing covert attentional selection during visual search,”Journal of Neurophysiology, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 2375–2386, 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    A new method for quantifying the performance of eeg blind source separation algorithms by referencing a simultaneously recorded ecog signal,

    N. Oosugi, K. Kitajo, N. Hasegawa, Y . Nagasaka, K. Okanoya, and N. Fujii, “A new method for quantifying the performance of eeg blind source separation algorithms by referencing a simultaneously recorded ecog signal,”Neural Networks, vol. 93, pp. 1–6, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.