03802nas a2200385 4500008004100000022001400041245008700055210006900142260001200211300001000223490000700233520264300240653001502883653001002898653003602908653002302944653002702967653002202994653001103016653002703027653002403054653003803078653002803116100002403144700002603168700002403194700001903218700002103237700002003258700002403278700002203302700002303324700002103347856004803368 2006 eng d a1534-432000aThe BCI competition III: Validating alternative approaches to actual BCI problems.0 aBCI competition III Validating alternative approaches to actual  c06/2006 a153-90 v143 a

brain-computer interface (BCI) is a system that allows its users to control external devices with brainactivity. Although the proof-of-concept was given decades ago, the reliable translation of user intent into device control commands is still a major challenge. Success requires the effective interaction of two adaptive controllers: the user's brain, which produces brain activity that encodes intent, and the BCI system, which translates that activity into device control commands. In order to facilitate this interaction, many laboratories are exploring a variety of signal analysis techniques to improve the adaptation of the BCI system to the user. In the literature, many machine learning and pattern classification algorithms have been reported to give impressive results when applied to BCI data in offline analyses. However, it is more difficult to evaluate their relative value for actual online use. BCI data competitions have been organized to provide objective formal evaluations of alternative methods. Prompted by the great interest in the first two BCI Competitions, we organized the third BCI Competition to address several of the most difficult and important analysis problems in BCI research. The paper describes the data sets that were provided to the competitors and gives an overview of the results.

10aAlgorithms10aBrain10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aDatabases, Factual10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials10aHumans10aNeuromuscular Diseases10aSoftware Validation10aTechnology Assessment, Biomedical10aUser-Computer Interface1 aBlankertz, Benjamin1 aMüller, Klaus-Robert1 aKrusienski, Dean, J1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aSchlögl, Alois1 aPfurtscheller, Gert1 aMillán, José, R1 aSchröder, Michael1 aBirbaumer, Niels uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1679228202785nas a2200445 4500008004100000022001400041245015300055210006900208260001200277300001000289490000700299520147600306653001501782653002801797653002101825653002701846653002701873653002201900653001101922653001101933653001601944653000901960653001601969653001401985653003501999653002802034100002502062700001302087700002302100700002002123700002102143700001502164700001902179700001802198700002102216700001802237700001502255700002102270856004802291 2006 eng d a1534-432000aClassifying EEG and ECoG signals without subject training for fast BCI implementation: comparison of nonparalyzed and completely paralyzed subjects.0 aClassifying EEG and ECoG signals without subject training for fa c06/2006 a183-60 v143 a

We summarize results from a series of related studies that aim to develop a motor-imagery-based brain-computer interface using a single recording session of electroencephalogram (EEG) or electrocorticogram (ECoG) signals for each subject. We apply the same experimental and analytical methods to 11 nonparalysed subjects (eight EEG, three ECoG), and to five paralyzed subjects (four EEG, one ECoG) who had been unable to communicate for some time. While it was relatively easy to obtain classifiable signals quickly from most of the nonparalyzed subjects, it proved impossible to classify the signals obtained from the paralyzed patients by the same methods. This highlights the fact that though certain BCI paradigms may work well with healthy subjects, this does not necessarily indicate success with the target user group. We outline possible reasons for this failure to transfer.

10aAlgorithms10aArtificial Intelligence10aCluster Analysis10aComputer User Training10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials10aFemale10aHumans10aImagination10aMale10aMiddle Aged10aParalysis10aPattern Recognition, Automated10aUser-Computer Interface1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aLal, T N1 aSchröder, Michael1 aHinterberger, T1 aWilhelm, Barbara1 aNijboer, F1 aMochty, Ursula1 aWidman, Guido1 aElger, Christian1 aSchölkopf, B1 aKübler, A1 aBirbaumer, Niels uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1679228901905nas a2200277 4500008004100000020002200041245007800063210006900141260003300210300001200243490000900255520107600264100002501340700001301365700002301378700002001401700001801421700002101439700001801460700002101478700001901499700002601518700002201544700001901566856004201585 2006 eng d a978-3-540-44412-100aClassifying Event-Related Desynchronization in EEG, ECoG and MEG Signals.0 aClassifying EventRelated Desynchronization in EEG ECoG and MEG S bSpringer Berlin / Heidelberg a404-4130 v41743 a

We employed three different brain signal recording methods to perform Brain-Computer Interface studies on untrained subjects. In all cases, we aim to develop a system that could be used for fast, reliable preliminary screening in clinical BCI application, and we are interested in knowing how long screening sessions need to be. Good performance could be achieved, on average, after the first 200 trials in EEG, 75–100 trials in MEG, or 25–50 trials in ECoG. We compare the performance of Independent Component Analysis and the Common Spatial Pattern algorithm in each of the three sensor types, finding that spatial filtering does not help in MEG, helps a little in ECoG, and improves performance a great deal in EEG. In all cases the unsupervised ICA algorithm performed at least as well as the supervised CSP algorithm, which can suffer from poor generalization performance due to overfitting, particularly in ECoG and MEG.

1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aLal, T N1 aSchröder, Michael1 aHinterberger, T1 aWidman, Guido1 aElger, Christian1 aSchölkopf, B1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aFranke, Katrin1 aMüller, Klaus-Robert1 aNickolay, Bertram1 aSchäfer, Ralf uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11861898_4102144nas a2200301 4500008004100000245008000041210006900121260001200190300001600202490000900218520113600227653002901363653002201392653002701414653002201441653003401463653002701497100002301524700001301547700002001560700001901580700002501599700002101624700001801645700001801663700003301681856012801714 2005 eng d00aRobust EEG Channel Selection across Subjects for Brain-Computer Interfaces.0 aRobust EEG Channel Selection across Subjects for BrainComputer I c01/2005 a3103–31120 v20053 a

Most EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI) paradigms come along with specific electrode positions, for example, for a visual-based BCI, electrode positions close to the primary visual cortex are used. For new BCI paradigms it is usually not known where task relevant activity can be measured from the scalp. For individual subjects, Lal et al. in 2004 showed that recording positions can be found without the use of prior knowledge about the paradigm used. However it remains unclear to what extent their method of recursive channel elimination (RCE) can be generalized across subjects. In this paper we transfer channel rankings from a group of subjects to a new subject. For motor imagery tasks the results are promising, although cross-subject channel selection does not quite achieve the performance of channel selection on data of single subjects. Although the RCE method was not provided with prior knowledge about the mental task, channels that are well known to be important (from a physiological point of view) were consistently selected whereas task-irrelevant channels were reliably disregarded.

10abrain-computer interface10achannel selection10aElectroencephalography10afeature selection10arecursive channel elimination10asupport vector machine1 aSchröder, Michael1 aLal, T N1 aHinterberger, T1 aBogdan, Martin1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aRosenstiel, W1 aSchölkopf, B1 aVesin J M, EbrahimiEditor, T uhttp://www.researchgate.net/publication/26532072_Robust_EEG_Channel_Selection_across_Subjects_for_Brain-Computer_Interfaces02760nas a2200433 4500008004100000022001400041245011000055210006900165260001200234300001200246490000700258520140000265653001001665653001501675653003401690653002801724653001001752653001401762653002301776653002701799653002201826653001101848653003101859653003201890653002801922100002401950700002601974700001902000700002402019700001902043700002102062700002002083700002002103700002402123700002002147700002302167700002102190856011502211 2004 eng d a0018-929400aThe BCI Competition 2003: Progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials.0 aBCI Competition 2003 Progress and perspectives in detection and  c06/2004 a1044-510 v513 aInterest in developing a new method of man-to-machine communication--a brain-computer interface (BCI)--has grown steadily over the past few decades. BCIs create a new communication channel between the brain and an output device by bypassing conventional motor output pathways of nerves and muscles. These systems use signals recorded from the scalp, the surface of the cortex, or from inside the brain to enable users to control a variety of applications including simple word-processing software and orthotics. BCI technology could therefore provide a new communication and control option for individuals who cannot otherwise express their wishes to the outside world. Signal processing and classification methods are essential tools in the development of improved BCI technology. We organized the BCI Competition 2003 to evaluate the current state of the art of these tools. Four laboratories well versed in EEG-based BCI research provided six data sets in a documented format. We made these data sets (i.e., labeled training sets and unlabeled test sets) and their descriptions available on the Internet. The goal in the competition was to maximize the performance measure for the test labels. Researchers worldwide tested their algorithms and competed for the best classification results. This paper describes the six data sets and the results and function of the most successful algorithms.10aAdult10aAlgorithms10aAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis10aArtificial Intelligence10aBrain10aCognition10aDatabases, Factual10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials10aHumans10aReproducibility of Results10aSensitivity and Specificity10aUser-Computer Interface1 aBlankertz, Benjamin1 aMüller, Klaus-Robert1 aCurio, Gabriel1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aSchlögl, Alois1 aNeuper, Christa1 aPfurtscheller, Gert1 aHinterberger, T1 aSchröder, Michael1 aBirbaumer, Niels uhttps://www.neurotechcenter.org/publications/2004/bci-competition-2003-progress-and-perspectives-detection-and02685nas a2200433 4500008004100000022001400041245011000055210006900165260001200234300001600246490000700262520140200269653003101671653000801702653001601710653002901726653000801755653000801763653002801771653003601799653001401835653000901849653001901858653003201877653002901909100002401938700002601962700001901988700002402007700001902031700002102050700002002071700002002091700002402111700002402135700002302159700002102182856004802203 2004 eng d a0018-929400aThe BCI Competition 2003: progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials.0 aBCI Competition 2003 progress and perspectives in detection and  c06/2004 a1044–10510 v513 aInterest in developing a new method of man-to-machine communication–a brain-computer interface (BCI)–has grown steadily over the past few decades. BCIs create a new communication channel between the brain and an output device by bypassing conventional motor output pathways of nerves and muscles. These systems use signals recorded from the scalp, the surface of the cortex, or from inside the brain to enable users to control a variety of applications including simple word-processing software and orthotics. BCI technology could therefore provide a new communication and control option for individuals who cannot otherwise express their wishes to the outside world. Signal processing and classification methods are essential tools in the development of improved BCI technology. We organized the BCI Competition 2003 to evaluate the current state of the art of these tools. Four laboratories well versed in EEG-based BCI research provided six data sets in a documented format. We made these data sets (i.e., labeled training sets and unlabeled test sets) and their descriptions available on the Internet. The goal in the competition was to maximize the performance measure for the test labels. Researchers worldwide tested their algorithms and competed for the best classification results. This paper describes the six data sets and the results and function of the most successful algorithms.10aaugmentative communication10aBCI10abeta-rhythm10abrain-computer interface10aEEG10aERP10aimagined hand movements10alateralized readiness potential10amu-rhythm10aP30010aRehabilitation10asingle-trial classification10aslow cortical potentials1 aBlankertz, Benjamin1 aMüller, Klaus-Robert1 aCurio, Gabriel1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aSchlögl, Alois1 aNeuper, Christa1 aPfurtscheller, Gert1 aHinterberger, Thilo1 aSchröder, Michael1 aBirbaumer, Niels uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15188876