Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Comparison of mental load between the evoked EEG and ongoing EEG in both of flickering SSVEP-BCI and motion-reversal SSMVEP-BCI tasks for individual subjects.

The mean values and SD of the ratio index θ/α of individual subjects within SSVEP-BCI and SSMVEP-BCI tasks were calculated. All statistics were assessed by unbalanced one-way ANOVA, *** p < 0.001 between evoked EEG and ongoing EEG, ** p < 0.01 between evoked EEG and ongoing EEG.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Comparison of the mean values and SD of mental load score between flickering SSVEP-BCI and motion-reversal SSMVEP-BCI task conditions over subjects.

The mean values and SD of the normalized power indices α and θ and ratio index θ/α were calculated from evoked EEG over nine subjects. Horizontal axis: SSVEP—flickering SSVEP-BCI task condition; SSMVEP—motion-reversal SSMVEP-BCI task condition. All statistics were assessed by one-way ANOVA, *** p < 0.001 between evoked EEG in SSVEP-BCI and SSMVEP-BCI tasks.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Grand-averaged SSVEP and SSMVEP spectra at fatigue level 1 and level 4 states over nine subjects.

(A) Grand-averaged SSVEP spectrum. (B) Grand-averaged SSMVEP spectrum. Fatigue level 1: spectral power calculated from the first five epochs of each run in SSVEP-BCI and SSMVEP-BCI tasks; Fatigue level 4: spectral power calculated from the last five epochs of each run.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Comparison of SSVEP and SSMVEP amplitudes between four different fatigue levels for individual subjects.

All statistics were assessed by one-way ANOVA, *** p < 0.001 between four different fatigue levels in both of SSVEP-BCI and SSMVEP-BCI tasks, ** p < 0.01 between four different fatigue levels, * p < 0.05 between four different fatigue levels.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Comparison of SSVEP and SSMVEP SNRs between four different fatigue levels for individual subjects.

All statistics were assessed by one-way ANOVA, *** p < 0.001 between four different fatigue levels in both of SSVEP-BCI and SSMVEP-BCI tasks, ** p < 0.01 between four different fatigue levels, * p < 0.05 between four different fatigue levels.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 1.

Statistical summary of the amplitude variations under fatigue level 1 and 4 for individual subjects.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Statistical summary of the SNR variations under fatigue level 1 and 4 for individual subjects.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 6.

Comparison of the mean values and SD of fatigue score between fatigue level 1 and 4 in both of flickering SSVEP-BCI and motion-reversal SSMVEP-BCI conditions over subjects.

(A) Comparison of fatigue between fatigue level 1 and 4 in SSVEP-BCI condition. (B) Comparison of fatigue between fatigue level 1 and 4 in SSMVEP-BCI condition. The mean values and SD of the normalized power indices α, θ and θ + α were calculated from ongoing EEG over nine subjects. Horizontal axis: Level 1—fatigue level 1 state; Level 4—fatigue level 4 state. All statistics were assessed by one-way ANOVA, *** p < 0.001 between ongoing EEG in SSVEP-BCI and SSMVEP-BCI conditions, * p < 0.05 between ongoing EEG in SSVEP-BCI and SSMVEP-BCI conditions.

More »

Fig 6 Expand