Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Giving direct, continuous feedback on a brain state is common practice in motor imagery based brain-computer interfaces (BCI), but has not been reported for BCIs based on event-related potentials (ERP), where feedback is only given once after a sequence of stimuli. Potentially, direct feedback could allow the user to adjust his strategy during a running trial to obtain the required response. In order to test the usefulness of such feedback, directionally congruent vibrotactile feedback was given during an online auditory BCI experiment. Users received either no feedback, short feedback pulses or continuous feedback. The feedback conditions showed reduced performance both on a behavioral task and in terms of classification accuracy. Several explanations are discussed that give interesting starting points for further research on this topic.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2012.6347533 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!