4.5 Article

Estimating cognitive load during self-regulation of brain activity and neurofeedback with therapeutic brain-computer interfaces

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00021

关键词

neurofeedback; cognitive load theory; zone of proximal development; workload; instructional design; brain-computer interface

资金

  1. Graduate Training Centre of Neuroscience, International Max Planck Research School, Tuebingen, Germany
  2. German Research Council
  3. Federal Ministry for Education and Research [BFNT 01GQ0761, BMBF 16SV3783, BMBF 03160064B, BMBF V4UKF014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurofeedback (NEB) training with brain computer interfaces (BCIs) is currently being studied in a variety of neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions in an aim to reduce disorder-specific symptoms. For this purpose, a range of classification algorithms has been explored to identify different brain states. These neural states, e.g., self-regulated brain activity vs. rest, are separated by setting a threshold parameter. Measures such as the maximum classification accuracy (CA) have been introduced to evaluate the performance of these algorithms. Interestingly enough, precisely these measures are often used to estimate the subject's ability to perform brain self-regulation. This is surprising, given that the goal of improving the tool that differentiates between brain states is different from the aim of optimizing NEB for the subject performing brain self regulation. For the latter, knowledge about mental resources and work load is essential in order to adapt the difficulty of the intervention accordingly. In this context, we apply an analytical method and provide empirical data to determine the zone of proximal development (ZPD) as a measure of a subject's cognitive resources and the instructional efficacy of NEB. This approach is based on a reconsideration of item-response theory (IRT) and cognitive load theory for instructional design, and combines them with the CA curve to provide a measure of BCI performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据