BCI Report
English中文

Left- vs. right-hand motor imagery across two sessions

OpenBMI motor imagery (Lee et al. 2019): EEG decoding results

The OpenBMI dataset (GigaScience Database 100542) holds EEG from 54 healthy participants, each recorded in two sessions on different days in three BCI paradigms — motor imagery, event-related potentials and SSVEP — with 62 electrodes at 1,000 Hz, plus questionnaires, resting-state and artifact recordings. Released by Lee et al. (Korea University) with the OpenBMI toolbox and described in GigaScience (2019). Only the motor-imagery training runs are used here.

Also known as OpenBMI · Lee2019 · Lee2019_MI · GigaDB 100542 · EEG Dataset and OpenBMI Toolbox for Three BCI Paradigms · Lee et al. (2019)

Description sources doi.org · doi.org · api.datacite.org

Where it appears

Published results

Every figure below is copied from a reviewed download, not recomputed for this page. Read each group with its protocol on the linked page.

Calibration budget · same person, next session, motor imagery

Read with its protocol: How much calibration? · Chance level 50.0% · large-source-update.json

Log-covariance + shrinkage LDA · Session 1 → session 2 · 0 labeled session-2 trials
67.9% (63.6%–72.4%)
Log-covariance + shrinkage LDA · Session 1 → session 2 · 10 labeled session-2 trials
69.1% (64.8%–73.5%)
Log-covariance + shrinkage LDA · Session 1 → session 2 · 20 labeled session-2 trials
69.2% (65.3%–73.4%)
Log-covariance + shrinkage LDA · Session 1 → session 2 · 40 labeled session-2 trials
72.4% (68.9%–76.2%)
Relative PSD + standardized ridge · Session 1 → session 2 · 0 labeled session-2 trials
57.3% (54.4%–60.5%)
Relative PSD + standardized ridge · Session 1 → session 2 · 10 labeled session-2 trials
57.4% (54.5%–60.5%)
Relative PSD + standardized ridge · Session 1 → session 2 · 20 labeled session-2 trials
57.9% (55.2%–60.8%)
Relative PSD + standardized ridge · Session 1 → session 2 · 40 labeled session-2 trials
59.0% (56.0%–62.1%)
Balanced accuracy, 8 configurations. Dot: the estimate; line: 95% interval; dashed line: chance level where the payload records one.
MethodConditionMetricValuePeople
Log-covariance + shrinkage LDASession 1 → session 2 · 0 labeled session-2 trialsBalanced accuracy67.9%63.6%–72.4%51
Log-covariance + shrinkage LDASession 1 → session 2 · 10 labeled session-2 trialsBalanced accuracy69.1%64.8%–73.5%51
Log-covariance + shrinkage LDASession 1 → session 2 · 20 labeled session-2 trialsBalanced accuracy69.2%65.3%–73.4%51
Log-covariance + shrinkage LDASession 1 → session 2 · 40 labeled session-2 trialsBalanced accuracy72.4%68.9%–76.2%51
Log-covariance + shrinkage LDA10 minus 0 labeled session-2 trials, the same people and test trialsPaired difference+1.2 pp−0.6 pp–+3.3 pp21 of 51 people declined, 8 by 5 points or more. The interval includes zero: the gain is not established.51
Log-covariance + shrinkage LDA20 minus 0 labeled session-2 trials, the same people and test trialsPaired difference+1.4 pp−0.3 pp–+3.2 pp24 of 51 people declined, 6 by 5 points or more. The interval includes zero: the gain is not established.51
Log-covariance + shrinkage LDA40 minus 0 labeled session-2 trials, the same people and test trialsPaired difference+4.6 pp+2.3 pp–+6.9 pp13 of 51 people declined, 6 by 5 points or more.51
Relative PSD + standardized ridgeSession 1 → session 2 · 0 labeled session-2 trialsBalanced accuracy57.3%54.4%–60.5%51
Relative PSD + standardized ridgeSession 1 → session 2 · 10 labeled session-2 trialsBalanced accuracy57.4%54.5%–60.5%51
Relative PSD + standardized ridgeSession 1 → session 2 · 20 labeled session-2 trialsBalanced accuracy57.9%55.2%–60.8%51
Relative PSD + standardized ridgeSession 1 → session 2 · 40 labeled session-2 trialsBalanced accuracy59.0%56.0%–62.1%51
Relative PSD + standardized ridge10 minus 0 labeled session-2 trials, the same people and test trialsPaired difference+0.1 pp−1.1 pp–+1.2 pp25 of 51 people declined, 6 by 5 points or more. The interval includes zero: the gain is not established.51
Relative PSD + standardized ridge20 minus 0 labeled session-2 trials, the same people and test trialsPaired difference+0.6 pp−0.9 pp–+2.0 pp19 of 51 people declined, 10 by 5 points or more. The interval includes zero: the gain is not established.51
Relative PSD + standardized ridge40 minus 0 labeled session-2 trials, the same people and test trialsPaired difference+1.7 pp−0.1 pp–+3.5 pp16 of 51 people declined, 6 by 5 points or more. The interval includes zero: the gain is not established.51

Source and licence

OpenBMI motor imagery (Lee et al. 2019)

Credit Min-Ho Lee, O-Yeon Kwon, Yong-Jeong Kim, Hong-Kyung Kim, Young-Eun Lee, John Williamson, Siamac Fazli and Seong-Whan Lee · EEG dataset and OpenBMI toolbox for three BCI paradigms: an investigation into BCI illiteracy, GigaScience (2019), giz002, doi:10.1093/gigascience/giz002. Data: Supporting data, GigaScience Database, doi:10.5524/100542.

CC0-1.0 ↗ · Dataset record ↗

BCI Report does not redistribute any recording. These are aggregate measurements computed by BCI Report under the licence above; the data belong to the people credited.

All datasets → · All methods →

Cite this page

BCI Report (2026). OpenBMI motor imagery (Lee et al. 2019): EEG decoding results. https://bci.report/datasets/openbmi/

Figures from release large-source-update-20261003 (2026-10-03). Cite the upstream dataset as well: its credit is on this page.

Every release is archived on Zenodo: doi:10.5281/zenodo.23123296. BibTeX for the site and its releases → · CITATION.cff ↗