[fundamental]

> his dataset is pretty worthless and the claims around it have been largely unsubstantiated.

The really sad part of it is that with fairly minor changes it could have been a landmark dataset IMO. Having better recording equipment, a lower noise floor environment for data collection (e.g. don't run fluorescent lights while recording), having precise timestamps integrated into the recording, better temporal separation between recording of various phrases, adding simultaneous EMG/EEG, etc would have resolved quite a few data related issues. It's a unique situation (for good reason), but bad data...

From seeing the data, I suspect the electrode placement was in a good enough location that novel things could have been done with a cleaner data source. I guess the major limiting factor is that absolutely no one would want to be involved with the project at that stage. What sort of IRB would approve any of this? Better data would answer some key questions that could generalize to lock-in patients (theoretically) and worst case it would provide a strong indicator that no significant BCI can be made for the task given the electrode placement.