## 3 Results  
As shown in Table 1, subjects took on average 7 min to complete each trial, but there was a standard deviation of more than 3 min. Subject 2 was the fastest, taking 4 min and 36 s per trial, while subject 8 took the longest with an average completion time of approximately 14 min. A Mann-Whitney test indicated that there was no statistically significant difference, U(CT1 = 70, CT2 = 67) = 2479, \(p\) = 0.57, between both days' trial completion times. On average, the robot was only in motion 10% of the time spent completing each trial. Path efficiency remained above 80% for all subjects. Subject 7's path efficiency score (which exceeds 100%) shows that the subject performed shorter paths during BCI control. This was most likely due to cutting corners by grasping the top of the cup or dragging it across the table to minimize the number of selections, for example. No significant difference between path efficiency during the first (\(88.9\%\pm 11.7\%\)) and second (\(92.2\%\pm 9.6\%\)) day was observed, \(t(135)=-1.8\), \(p=0.08\). Subject performance for the first day is compared to subject performance for the second day in Figure 5. Note that subject 4 was excluded from both previous statistical analysis since the subject was not able to complete any trial on the second day successfully. Table 2 shows the number of trials completed, along with failures, and the completion rate for each subject for both days. Ideally, subjects would be able to perform 14 trials in two 30-minute sessions considering the time taken with manual control. There was no statistically significant difference, t(7) = 0.43, \(p\) = 0.68, between the average number of successful trials for the first (\(8.8\pm 3.6\)) and second day (\(8.4\pm 4.9\)). Subject 4 and 7 had a performance dip on the second day. Type 2 failures occurred with more frequency on the first day, caused by the subject's inexperience with the robotic arm. Subjects obtained \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**SUB** & **TD (s)** & **RMT (s)** & **PE (\%)** & **AST** \\ \hline
1 & \(312.5\pm 76.9\) & \(40.6\pm 8.3\) & \(84.2\pm 13.5\) & \(10\pm 2\) \\
2 & \(278.8\pm 38.8\) & \(36.6\pm 2.4\) & \(96.1\pm 4.9\) & \(8\pm 0\) \\
3 & \(324.4\pm 119.8\) & \(35.4\pm 7.4\) & \(86.9\pm 11.2\) & \(10\pm 3\) \\
4 & \(677.0\pm 289.1\) & \(33.7\pm 3.1\) & \(93.0\pm 8.6\) & \(12\pm 4\) \\
5 & \(309.1\pm 42.7\) & \(36.8\pm 2.9\) & \(87.0\pm 6.7\) & \(9\pm 2\) \\
6 & \(415.1\pm 120.6\) & \(37.4\pm 2.4\) & \(86.2\pm 5.6\) & \(10\pm 2\) \\
7 & \(367.7\pm 118.8\) & \(34.5\pm 3.1\) & \(101.6\pm 8.1\) & \(8\pm 1\) \\
8 & \(833.0\pm 214.2\) & \(36.8\pm 4.6\) & \(86.2\pm 8.3\) & \(12\pm 3\) \\ \hline Mean \(\pm\) SD & \(439.7\pm 203.3\) & \(36.5\pm 2.1\) & \(90.2\pm 6.1\) & \(9.4\pm 1.2\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} TD = Total Duration; RMT = Robot Motion Time; PE = Path Efficiency; AST = Average Selections per Trial; SD = standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Overall performance for successful trials. an overall completion rate of 83.5%. No statistically significant difference was found for the average completion rates obtained for the first (84.0% \(\pm\) 15.0%) and second day (74.4% \(\pm\) 34.5%), t(7) = 1.29, \(p\) = 0.24. The system's performance during target selection is presented in Table 3. Only subjects 4 and 8 obtained Youden Indexes lower than 0.50. Both subjects also obtained the lowest percentages of voluntary selections. Five out of eight subjects were able to obtain a voluntary selection percentage above 70%. For subjects 4, 6, and 8, the results suggest a high false-positive rate, triggering a cascade of involuntary target selections followed by cancellations. During continuous control, erroneous stop commands were also sent often, increasing trial duration times.