Direct comparison of supervised and semi-supervised retraining approaches for co-adaptive BCIs.

For Brain-Computer interfaces (BCIs), system calibration is a lengthy but necessary process for successful operation. Co-adaptive BCIs aim to shorten training and imply positive motivation to users by presenting feedback already at early stages: After just 5 min of gathering calibration data, the systems are able to provide feedback and engage users in a mutual learning process. In this work, we investigate whether the retraining stage of co-adaptive BCIs can be adapted to a semi-supervised concept, where only a small amount of labeled data is available and all additional data needs to be labeled by the BCI itself. The aim of the current work was to evaluate whether a semi-supervised co-adaptive BCI could successfully compete with a supervised co-adaptive BCI model. In a supporting two-class (190 trials per condition) BCI study based on motor imagery tasks, we evaluated both approaches in two separate groups of 10 participants online, while we simulated the other approach in each group offline. Our results indicate that despite the lack of true labeled data, the semi-supervised driven BCI did not perform significantly worse (p > 0.05) than the supervised counterpart. We believe that these findings contribute to developing BCIs for long-term use, where continuous adaptation becomes imperative for maintaining meaningful BCI performance. Graphical abstract In this work, we investigate whether the retraining stage of a co-adaptive BCI can be adapted to a semi-supervised concept, where only a small amount of labeled data is available and all additional data needs to be labeled by the BCI itself. In two groups of 10 persons, we evaluate a supervised as well as a semi-supervised approach. Our results indicate that despite the lack of true labeled data, the semi-supervised driven BCI did not perform significantly worse (p > 0.05) than the supervised counterpart.