pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29677 · v1 · pith:HTQUSKKPnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 💻 cs.HC · eess.SP· q-bio.NC

Embodied Virtual Reality Feedback Reshapes Neural Representations to Support Continuous Three-Dimensional Motor Imagery Decoding

Niall McShane , Attila Korik , Karl McCreadie , Naomi Du Bois , Darryl Charles , Damien Coyle This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 05:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC eess.SPq-bio.NC
keywords motor imagerybrain-computer interfacevirtual realityneural decoding3D controlembodied feedbackcontinuous BCIneurorehabilitation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Embodied VR feedback during motor imagery produces neural representations that support better continuous 3D decoding than screen feedback.

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

This paper tests whether giving people virtual reality feedback while they imagine moving a 3D limb changes their brain signals in ways that make those signals easier to decode into actual movement commands. Over ten sessions with ten participants, a decoder trained on VR feedback sessions performed better at predicting imagined 3D movements than one trained on screen feedback, and the advantage held even without retraining the decoder. The VR condition also showed stronger brain desynchronization in sensorimotor areas and different connectivity patterns that resemble real movement. If this holds, it suggests feedback design can directly improve the quality of brain signals for brain-computer interfaces aimed at motor control and rehabilitation.

Core claim

The study found that embodied virtual reality feedback, compared to screen-based feedback, leads to neural representations during motor imagery that are more decodable for continuous three-dimensional trajectories. A CNN-LSTM decoder achieved higher correlations (r=0.762 vs 0.672) under VR, with the advantage persisting across fixed decoder, adaptive training, and within-session evaluations. VR also induced stronger sensorimotor-parietal desynchronisation, enhanced motor-frontal connectivity, and anterior insula engagement, patterns similar to actual movement execution.

What carries the argument

The embodied VR feedback mechanism, which provides spatial 3D visual feedback of a virtual limb controlled in real-time by motor imagery, reshaping neural representations for improved decodability.

Load-bearing premise

The observed performance and brain signal differences are caused specifically by the embodied spatial nature of the VR feedback rather than by differences in visual detail, participant engagement, or other factors between conditions.

What would settle it

A follow-up experiment that matches visual richness and participant motivation between VR and screen conditions but finds no decoding advantage for VR would falsify the claim that embodied spatial feedback is the key driver.

read the original abstract

Continuous brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) that decode motion trajectories from imagined movement offer intuitive motor control, yet how feedback modality and longitudinal training shape neural representations and decoding performance remains poorly understood. We present the first systematic investigation of embodied virtual reality (VR) feedback during real-time 3D virtual limb control driven by motor imagery, across ten longitudinal sessions in ten participants. Performance was evaluated using three strategies: actual online performance (Fixed Decoder Generalisation, FDG), periodic retraining (Sequential Adaptive Training, SAT), and within-session upper-bound estimation (Within-Session Reconstruction, WSR). A CNN-LSTM decoder achieved within-session imagined movement correlations of r = 0.762 under VR and r = 0.672 under screen feedback. VR significantly outperformed screen feedback across all strategies and movement dimensions (improvements of 8.9-13.0%, all p <= 0.002, d = 1.42-2.05). This advantage persisted under fixed decoders without retraining, demonstrating that embodied VR feedback elicits inherently more decodable and generalisable neural representations. Linear mixed-effects modelling confirmed robust main effects of feedback modality and movement axis with no interaction. Neurophysiologically, VR produced stronger sensorimotor-parietal desynchronisation and enhanced motor-frontal functional connectivity, with pervasive anterior insula engagement across all frequency bands and increased superior parietal lobule coupling, paralleling patterns associated with real movement execution. These findings establish embodied spatial feedback as a key design principle for next-generation continuous BCIs targeting intuitive motor control and neurorehabilitation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a longitudinal study with 10 participants over 10 sessions comparing embodied VR feedback to screen feedback during real-time 3D virtual limb control driven by motor imagery. A CNN-LSTM decoder yields higher within-session correlations under VR (r=0.762) than screen (r=0.672), with the VR advantage (8.9-13.0% improvement) holding across Fixed Decoder Generalisation (FDG), Sequential Adaptive Training (SAT), and Within-Session Reconstruction (WSR) strategies, all p≤0.002, d=1.42-2.05. Linear mixed-effects models show main effects of modality and axis with no interaction; neurophysiologically, VR elicits stronger sensorimotor-parietal desynchronisation, enhanced motor-frontal connectivity, anterior insula engagement, and superior parietal lobule coupling. The central claim is that embodied VR feedback produces inherently more decodable and generalisable neural representations, establishing embodied spatial feedback as a key BCI design principle.

Significance. If the causal attribution to embodied spatial feedback holds after addressing potential confounds, the work would be significant as the first systematic longitudinal investigation of feedback modality in continuous 3D motor imagery BCIs, with direct implications for intuitive control and neurorehabilitation design. The multi-strategy evaluation and neurophysiological parallels to real movement execution add empirical value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'embodied VR feedback elicits inherently more decodable and generalisable neural representations' and that 'embodied spatial feedback [is] a key design principle' rests on an untested attribution. The linear mixed-effects modelling confirms a main effect of modality, yet the manuscript provides no evidence that VR and screen conditions were matched on visual richness, field of view, depth cues, participant instructions, or motivation/attention demands; without such isolation the modality effect cannot be ascribed specifically to the embodied spatial character rather than other uncontrolled differences between setups.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (FDG results): The persistence of the VR advantage under Fixed Decoder Generalisation is presented as demonstrating inherently more decodable representations, but the description does not specify how the fixed decoder was trained, applied identically across conditions, or whether any differences in input signal quality or participant strategy between VR and screen sessions were controlled; this leaves open alternative explanations for the r=0.762 vs r=0.672 difference.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports n=10 but does not detail power analysis or how the sample supports the reported effect sizes and generalisability claims.
  2. [Abstract] Neurophysiological findings (stronger desynchronisation, connectivity changes) are described qualitatively; quantitative metrics or statistical maps for the frequency-band and region-specific effects would strengthen the link to the decoding results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the interpretation of our results. We address each major comment below with the strongest honest defense possible and note where revisions will strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'embodied VR feedback elicits inherently more decodable and generalisable neural representations' and that 'embodied spatial feedback [is] a key design principle' rests on an untested attribution. The linear mixed-effects modelling confirms a main effect of modality, yet the manuscript provides no evidence that VR and screen conditions were matched on visual richness, field of view, depth cues, participant instructions, or motivation/attention demands; without such isolation the modality effect cannot be ascribed specifically to the embodied spatial character rather than other uncontrolled differences between setups.

    Authors: We agree this is a valid concern and that the abstract's phrasing attributes the effect specifically to embodiment without fully isolating it from other setup differences. The study contrasted a 3D embodied VR limb against 2D screen feedback by design, with the LME confirming a modality main effect. However, the manuscript does not provide explicit matching details on the listed factors. We will revise the methods to add a table comparing visual parameters, FOV, depth cues, and instructions across conditions, and add a limitations section discussing potential attention/motivation differences. The abstract will be updated to a more qualified claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (FDG results): The persistence of the VR advantage under Fixed Decoder Generalisation is presented as demonstrating inherently more decodable representations, but the description does not specify how the fixed decoder was trained, applied identically across conditions, or whether any differences in input signal quality or participant strategy between VR and screen sessions were controlled; this leaves open alternative explanations for the r=0.762 vs r=0.672 difference.

    Authors: We accept that the FDG description in the abstract is insufficiently detailed. The fixed decoder was trained on early-session data from each participant and applied without retraining using identical architecture and hyperparameters to both conditions. To rule out alternatives, we will expand the methods with details on cross-condition feature normalization, SNR comparisons, and post-experiment strategy questionnaires. These additions will support the generalisability claim while acknowledging any uncontrolled factors. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical comparison with direct measurements

full rationale

The paper is an empirical BCI study reporting measured decoding correlations (r=0.762 VR vs r=0.672 screen), linear mixed-effects results, and neurophysiological differences across conditions. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the provided text. All performance metrics and statistical effects are obtained from participant data under the two feedback modalities; none reduce to inputs by construction. The central claim that VR elicits more decodable representations rests on observed differences rather than definitional equivalence or imported uniqueness theorems. This is the expected finding for a non-theoretical experimental report.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical neuroscience experiment; no mathematical free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond standard assumptions of EEG decoding and linear mixed-effects modelling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5840 in / 1075 out tokens · 18622 ms · 2026-06-29T05:44:27.511701+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Despite their importance, most training protocols remain designed for discrete MI tasks, with little attention to continuous, embodied motion decoding in 3D space during 3D motor imagery . Previous work has also highlighted design limitations in 3D MTD paradigms, where suboptimal target configurations can reduce separability and compromise decoder trainin...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16047021 1988

  2. [2]

    McFarland, D. J. & Wolpaw, J. R. Brain -computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin. Neurophysiol. 113, 767–791 (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    & Crosbie, J

    Prasad, G., Herman, P., Coyle, D., McDonough, S. & Crosbie, J. Applying a brain -computer interface to support motor imagery practice in people with stroke for upper limb recovery: A feasibility study. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 7, (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    & Carroll, Á

    Coyle, D., Stow, J., McCreadie, K., McElligott, J. & Carroll, Á. Sensorimotor modulation assessment and brain-computer interface training in disorders of consciousness. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 96, S62–S70 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Du Bois, N. et al. Advancing EEG-based assessment of consciousness and cognition in prolonged disorders of consciousness. Commun. Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-026-01574-x (2026) doi:10.1038/s43856- 026-01574-x. 23

    work page doi:10.1038/s43856-026-01574-x 2026

  6. [6]

    & Nijholt, A

    Tan, D. & Nijholt, A. Brain -Computer Interfaces and Human -Computer Interaction Brain -Computer Interfaces and Human-Computer Interaction. 4–6 (2020) doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-272-8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-272-8 2020

  7. [7]

    & Callaghan, M

    Marshall, D., Coyle, D., Wilson, S. & Callaghan, M. Games, gameplay, and BCI: The state of the art. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 5, 82–99 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    & Jun, S

    Ahn, M., Lee, M., Choi, J. & Jun, S. C. A review of brain-computer interface games and an opinion survey from researchers, developers and users. Sens. Switz. 14, 14601–14633 (2014)

    2014

  9. [9]

    & Coyle, D

    Korik, A., Sosnik, R., Siddique, N. & Coyle, D. Decoding imagined 3D hand movement trajectories from EEG: Evidence to support the use of mu, beta, and low gamma oscillations. Front. Neurosci. 12, 1–16 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Müller-Putz, G. R. et al. Feel Your Reach: An EEG -Based Framework to Continuously Detect Goal - Directed Movements and Error Processing to Gate Kinesthetic Feedback Informed Artificial Arm Control. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 16, 1–21 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    & Coyle, D

    McShane, N., McCreadie, K., Charles, D., Korik, A. & Coyle, D. Online 3D Motion Decoder BCI for Embodied Virtual Reality Upper Limb Control: A Pilot Study. in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Metrology for Extended Reality, Artificial Intelligence and Neural Engineering (MetroXRAINE) 697–702 (IEEE, Rome, Italy, 2022). doi:10.1109/MetroXRAINE54828.202...

    work page doi:10.1109/metroxraine54828.2022.9967577 2022

  12. [12]

    & Coyle, D

    McShane, N., McCreadie, K., Charles, D., Korik, A. & Coyle, D. Decoding Motion Trajectories in an Upper Limb BCI: Linear Regression vs Deep Learning. in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Metrology for eXtended Reality, Artificial Intelligence and Neural Engineering (MetroXRAINE) 1039–1044 (IEEE, Milano, Italy, 2023). doi:10.1109/MetroXRAINE58569.2023.10405752

    work page doi:10.1109/metroxraine58569.2023.10405752 2023

  13. [13]

    J., Gentili, R

    Bradberry, T. J., Gentili, R. J. & Contreras-Vidal, J. L. Reconstructing three-dimensional hand movements from noninvasive electroencephalographic signals. J. Neurosci. 30, 3432–3437 (2010)

    2010

  14. [14]

    & Müller -Putz, G

    Ofner, P. & Müller -Putz, G. Decoding of hand movement velocities in three dimensions from the EEG during continuous movement of the arm: 3rd TOBI Workshop. Proc. 3rd TOBI Workshop Bringing BCIs End-Users Facing Chall. - Eval. User Perspect. User Needs Ethical Quest. 10–12 (2012). 24

    2012

  15. [15]

    M., Montesano, L., Ramos -Murguialday, A., Birbaumer, N

    Antelis, J. M., Montesano, L., Ramos -Murguialday, A., Birbaumer, N. & Minguez, J. On the Usage of Linear Regression Models to Reconstruct Limb Kinematics from Low Frequency EEG Signals. PLoS ONE 8, e61976 (2013)

    2013

  16. [16]

    & Roy, S

    Pancholi, S., Giri, A., Jain, A., Kumar, L. & Roy, S. Source Aware Deep Learning Framework for Hand Kinematic Reconstruction Using EEG Signal. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 1–13 (2022) doi:10.1109/TCYB.2022.3166604

    work page doi:10.1109/tcyb.2022.3166604 2022

  17. [17]

    & Müller-Putz, G

    Borra, D., Mondini, V., Magosso, E. & Müller-Putz, G. R. Decoding movement kinematics from EEG using an interpretable convolutional neural network. Comput. Biol. Med. 165, 107323 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Wang, P. et al. MTRT: Motion Trajectory Reconstruction Transformer for EEG -Based BCI Decoding. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 31, 2349–2358 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Korik, A. et al. Decoding the Variable Velocity of Lower -Limb Stepping Movements From EEG. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 33, 3511–3523 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    & Kumar, L

    Jain, A. & Kumar, L. Subject-Independent 3D Hand Kinematics Reconstruction using Pre-Movement EEG Signals for Grasp And Lift Task. Biomed. Signal Process. Control 86, 105160 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    G., Kim, J

    Yeom, H. G., Kim, J. S. & Chung, C. K. LSTM Improves Accuracy of Reaching Trajectory Prediction from Magnetoencephalography Signals. IEEE Access 8, 20146–20150 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI47803.2020.9308468, https://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI47803.2020.9308468

    Leon-Urbano, C. & Ugarte, W. End-to-end electroencephalogram (EEG) motor imagery classification with Long Short -Term. in 2020 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) 2814–2820 (IEEE, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2020). doi:10.1109/SSCI47803.2020.9308610

    work page doi:10.1109/ssci47803.2020.9308610 2020

  23. [23]

    S., Basyiri, H

    Saragih, A. S., Basyiri, H. N. & Raihan, M. Y. Analysis of Motor Imagery Data from EEG Device to Move Prosthetic Hands by using Deep Learning Classification. AIP Conf. Proc. 2537, (2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    & Jin, J

    Li, S., Tian, M., Xu, R., Cichocki, A. & Jin, J. Decoding continuous motion trajectories of upper limb from EEG signals based on feature selection and nonlinear methods. J. Neural Eng. 21, 066039 (2024). 25

    2024

  25. [25]

    & Magosso, E

    Borra, D., Fantozzi, S. & Magosso, E. Interpretable and lightweight convolutional neural network for EEG decoding: Application to movement execution and imagination. Neural Netw. 129, 55–74 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    & Müller -Putz, G

    Ofner, P. & Müller -Putz, G. Decoding of Velocities and Positions of 3D Arm Movement from EEG . Conference proceedings : ... Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Conference vol. 2012 9 (2012)

    2012

  27. [27]

    & Zheng, L

    Sosnik, R. & Zheng, L. Reconstruction of hand, elbow and shoulder actual and imagined trajectories in 3D space using EEG current source dipoles. J. Neural Eng. 18, (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Wolpaw, J. R. & Kamesar, A. Heksor: the central nervous system substrate of an adaptive behaviour. J. Physiol. 600, 3423–3452 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Wolpaw, J. R. Making brain–computer interfaces as reliable as muscles. J. Neural Eng. 22, 043001 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Phunruangsakao, C., Achanccaray, D., Bhattacharyya, S., Izumi, S. -I. & Hayashibe, M. Effects of visual - electrotactile stimulation feedback on brain functional connectivity during motor imagery practice. Sci. Rep. 13, 17752 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    & Alimardani, M

    Leeuwis, N., Yoon, S. & Alimardani, M. Functional Connectivity Analysis in Motor -Imagery Brain Computer Interfaces. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 15, 732946 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    A., Attux, R

    Stefano Filho, C. A., Attux, R. & Castellano, G. Motor imagery practice and feedback effects on functional connectivity. J. Neural Eng. 18, 066048 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    & Wang, R

    Xiong, Z., Tian, C., Zeng, X., Huang, J. & Wang, R. The Relationship of Functional Connectivity of the Sensorimotor and Visual Cortical Networks Between Resting and Task States. Front. Neurosci. 14, 592720 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    & Gutiérrez, D

    Alanis-Espinosa, M. & Gutiérrez, D. On the Assessment of Functional Connectivity in an Immersive Brain- Computer Interface During Motor Imagery. Front. Psychol. 11, 1301 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    & Cohen, J

    Botvinick, M. & Cohen, J. Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391, 756–756 (1998). 26

    1998

  36. [36]

    & Liarokapis, F

    Škola, F. & Liarokapis, F. Examining and Enhancing the Illusory Touch Perception in Virtual Reality Using Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation. in ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–12 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    Yang, J. et al. The Effects of VR and TP Visual Cues on Motor Imagery Subjects and Performance. Electronics 12, 2381 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Nunes, J. D. et al. Brain activation by a VR -based motor imagery and observation task: An fMRI study. PLOS ONE 18, e0291528 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    Zhou, L. et al. A comparison of directed functional connectivity among fist -related brain activities during movement imagery, movement execution, and movement observation. Brain Res. 1777, 147769 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    & Liarokapis, F

    Škola, F. & Liarokapis, F. Embodied VR environment facilitates motor imagery brain –computer interface training. Comput. Graph. Pergamon 75, 59–71 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    & Badia, S

    Vourvopoulos, A., Ferreira, A. & Badia, S. B. I. NeuRow: An immersive VR environment for motor - imagery training with the use of Brain-Computer Interfaces and vibrotactile feedback. PhyCS 2016 - Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Physiol. Comput. Syst. 43–53 (2016) doi:10.5220/0005939400430053

    work page doi:10.5220/0005939400430053 2016

  42. [42]

    & Liarokapis, F

    Škola, F. & Liarokapis, F. Virtual Reality Embodiment in Motor Imagery Brain –Computer Interface Training. SN Comput. Sci. 4, 17 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    Muller-Putz, G. R. et al. Towards non-invasive brain-computer interface for hand/arm control in users with spinal cord injury. 2018 6th Int. Conf. Brain-Comput. Interface BCI 2018 2018-Janua, 1–4 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    & Coyle, D

    Korik, A., Sosnik, R., Siddique, N. & Coyle, D. Decoding imagined 3D arm movement trajectories from EEG to control two virtual arms-a pilot study. Front. Neurorobotics 13, 1–22 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    & Lotte, F

    Pillette, L., N’kaoua, B., Sabau, R., Glize, B. & Lotte, F. Multi -session influence of two modalities of feedback and their order of presentation on mi-bci user training. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 5, (2021). 27

    2021

  46. [46]

    Korik, A. et al. Competing at the Cybathlon Championship for Athletes With Disabilities: Long -Term Motor Imagery Brain -Computer Interface Training of a Tetraplegic Cybathlete. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. (2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    Roc, A. et al. A review of user training methods in brain computer interfaces based on mental tasks. J. Neural Eng. 18, (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    & Statthaler, K

    Schwarz, A., Steyrl, D. & Statthaler, K. BCI adaptation for end users The Graz-BCI approach. in Cybathlon Symposium (2016)

    2016

  49. [49]

    Eye movements and their functions in everyday tasks

    Foulsham, T. Eye movements and their functions in everyday tasks. Eye Basingstoke 29, 196–199 (2015)

    2015

  50. [50]

    & Buchner, A

    Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. & Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191 (2007)

    2007

  51. [51]

    A., Coyle, D

    McCreadie, K. A., Coyle, D. H. & Prasad, G. Is sensorimotor BCI performance influenced differently by mono, stereo, or 3-D auditory feedback? IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22, 431–440 (2014)

    2014

  52. [52]

    g.Nautilus RESEARCH Wearable EEG Cap

    g.tec medical engineering. g.Nautilus RESEARCH Wearable EEG Cap. g.tec medical engineering https://www.gtec.at/product/g-nautilus-research/ (2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    & Koike, Y

    Zhang, Z. & Koike, Y. Clustered event related spectral perturbation (ERSP) feature in right hand motor imagery classification. Front. Neurosci. 16, 867480 (2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    Ray Tune

    The Ray Team. Ray Tune. (2024)

    2024

  55. [55]

    R: The R Project for Statistical Computing

    R Core Team. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. R Core Team (2024)

    2024

  56. [56]

    Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, (2017)

    2017

  57. [57]

    Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences

    Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988)

    1988

  58. [58]

    Nolte, G. et al. Identifying true brain interaction from EEG data using the imaginary part of coherency. Clin. Neurophysiol. 115, 2292–2307 (2004). 28

    2004

  59. [59]

    M., Wong -Lin, K., Ahmad, A

    Sanchez Bornot, J. M., Wong -Lin, K., Ahmad, A. L. & Prasad, G. Robust EEG/MEG Based Functional Connectivity with the Envelope of the Imaginary Coherence: Sensor Space Analysis. Brain Topogr. 31, 895–916 (2018)

    2018

  60. [60]

    & Kübler, A

    Nijboer, F., Birbaumer, N. & Kübler, A. The influence of psychological state and motivation on brain - computer interface performance in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - a longitudinal study. Front. Neurosci. 4, 1–13 (2010)

    2010

  61. [61]

    Bastos, A. M. & Schoffelen, J. -M. A Tutorial Review of Functional Connectivity Analysis Methods and Their Interpretational Pitfalls. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 9, (2016)

    2016