@article {3096,
	title = {The P300-based brain-computer interface (BCI): effects of stimulus rate.},
	journal = {Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology},
	volume = {122},
	year = {2011},
	month = {04/2011},
	pages = {731{\textendash}737},
	abstract = {OBJECTIVE:
Brain-computer interface technology can restore communication and control to people who are severely paralyzed. We have developed a non-invasive BCI based on the P300 event-related potential that uses an 8{\texttimes}9 matrix of 72 items that flash in groups of 6. Stimulus presentation rate (i.e., flash rate) is one of several parameters that could affect the speed and accuracy of performance. We studied performance (i.e., accuracy and characters/min) on copy spelling as a function of flash rate.
METHODS:
In the first study of six BCI users, stimulus-on and stimulus-off times were equal and flash rate was 4, 8, 16, or 32 Hz. In the second study of five BCI users, flash rate was varied by changing either the stimulus-on or stimulus-off time.
RESULTS:
For all users, lower flash rates gave higher accuracy. The flash rate that gave the highest characters/min varied across users, ranging from 8 to 32 Hz. However, variations in stimulus-on and stimulus-off times did not themselves significantly affect accuracy. Providing feedback did not affect results in either study suggesting that offline analyses should readily generalize to online performance. However there do appear to be session-specific effects that can influence the generalizability of classifier results.
CONCLUSIONS:
The results show that stimulus presentation (i.e., flash) rate affects the accuracy and speed of P300 BCI performance.
SIGNIFICANCE:
These results extend the range over which slower flash rates increase the amplitude of the P300. Considering also presentation time, the optimal rate differs among users, and thus should be set empirically for each user. Optimal flash rate might also vary with other parameters such as the number of items in the matrix.},
	keywords = {brain-computer interface, neuroprosthesis, P300},
	issn = {1872-8952},
	doi = {10.1016/j.clinph.2010.10.029},
	url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21067970},
	author = {Dennis J. McFarland and Sarnacki, William A. and Townsend, George and Theresa M Vaughan and Jonathan Wolpaw}
}
@article {3134,
	title = {A P300 event-related potential brain-computer interface (BCI): the effects of matrix size and inter stimulus interval on performance.},
	journal = {Biological psychology},
	volume = {73},
	year = {2006},
	month = {10/2006},
	pages = {242{\textendash}252},
	abstract = {We describe a study designed to assess properties of a P300 brain-computer interface (BCI). The BCI presents the user with a matrix containing letters and numbers. The user attends to a character to be communicated and the rows and columns of the matrix briefly intensify. Each time the attended character is intensified it serves as a rare event in an oddball sequence and it elicits a P300 response. The BCI works by detecting which character elicited a P300 response. We manipulated the size of the character matrix (either 3 x 3 or 6 x 6) and the duration of the inter stimulus interval (ISI) between intensifications (either 175 or 350 ms). Online accuracy was highest for the 3 x 3 matrix 175-ms ISI condition, while bit rate was highest for the 6 x 6 matrix 175-ms ISI condition. Average accuracy in the best condition for each subject was 88\%. P300 amplitude was significantly greater for the attended stimulus and for the 6 x 6 matrix. This work demonstrates that matrix size and ISI are important variables to consider when optimizing a BCI system for individual users and that a P300-BCI can be used for effective communication.},
	keywords = {Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, brain-computer interface, electroencephalogram, event-related potentials, P300, Rehabilitation},
	issn = {0301-0511},
	doi = {10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.04.007},
	url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16860920},
	author = {Sellers, Eric W. and Krusienski, Dean J. and Dennis J. McFarland and Theresa M Vaughan and Jonathan Wolpaw}
}
