Figure Percent ROV improvement using collaborative averaging compared to regular averaging for different number of trials. Figure Shows how many more trials, compared to using collaborative averaging, are needed to achieve the same level of correlation with the ERP calculated from all 118 trials. Figure Optimal weight for the average of other subjects, obtained by collaborative averaging for different number of trials. Figure Target ERP of the select IC from all trials (gray), the first 30 trials (blue) and collaborative averaging using the first 30 trials of the subject and individually weighted patterns from other subjects. The green rectangle highlights a period where the ERP from 30 trials contains extraneuous peaks that are corrected when using collaborative averaging. Figure Correlations between the average ERP from all (118) trials and ERPs from a subset of trials calculated by regular averaging (black)
Figure Percent ROV improvement using collaborative averaging compared to regular averaging for different number of trials. Figure Shows how many more trials, compared to using collaborative averaging, are needed to achieve the same level of correlation with the ERP calculated from all 118 trials. Figure Optimal weight for the average of other subjects, obtained by collaborative averaging for different number of trials. Figure Target ERP of the select IC from all trials (gray), the first 30 trials (blue) and collaborative averaging using the first 30 trials of the subject and individually weighted patterns from other subjects. The green rectangle highlights a period where the ERP from 30 trials contains extraneuous peaks that are corrected when using collaborative averaging. Figure Correlations between the average ERP from all (118) trials and ERPs from a subset of trials calculated by regular averaging (black)
nima_bigdely_shamlo_doctoral_dissertation.docx