03537nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245009500055210006900150260001200219300001200231490000800243520277200251653002903023653000803052653002703060653001303087653001403100653002403114100002603138700002603164700002403190700002103214856004803235       2005                        eng d  a1388-245700aBrain-computer interface (BCI) operation: signal and noise during early training sessions.0 aBraincomputer interface BCI operation signal and noise during ea  c01/2005  a56–620 v1163 aOBJECTIVE:
People can learn to control mu (8-12 Hz) or beta (18-25 Hz) rhythm amplitude in the electroencephalogram (EEG) recorded over sensorimotor cortex and use it to move a cursor to a target on a video screen. The recorded signal may also contain electromyogram (EMG) and other non-EEG artifacts. This study examines the presence and characteristics of EMG contamination during new users' initial brain-computer interface (BCI) training sessions, as they first attempt to acquire control over mu or beta rhythm amplitude and to use that control to move a cursor to a target.
METHODS:
In the standard one-dimensional format, a target appears along the right edge of the screen and 1s later the cursor appears in the middle of the left edge and moves across the screen at a fixed rate with its vertical movement controlled by a linear function of mu or beta rhythm amplitude. In the basic two-choice version, the target occupies the upper or lower half of the right edge. The user's task is to move the cursor vertically so that it hits the target when it reaches the right edge. The present data comprise the first 10 sessions of BCI training from each of 7 users. Their data were selected to illustrate the variations seen in EMG contamination across users.
RESULTS:
Five of the 7 users learned to change rhythm amplitude appropriately, so that the cursor hit the target. Three of these 5 showed no evidence of EMG contamination. In the other two of these 5, EMG was prominent in early sessions, and tended to be associated with errors rather than with hits. As EEG control improved over the 10 sessions, this EMG contamination disappeared. In the remaining two users, who never acquired actual EEG control, EMG was prominent in initial sessions and tended to move the cursor to the target. This EMG contamination was still detectable by Session 10.
CONCLUSIONS:
EMG contamination arising from cranial muscles is often present early in BCI training and gradually wanes. In those users who eventually acquire EEG control, early target-related EMG contamination may be most prominent for unsuccessful trials, and may reflect user frustration. In those users who never acquire EEG control, EMG may initially serve to move the cursor toward the target. Careful and comprehensive topographical and spectral analyses throughout user training are essential for detecting EMG contamination and differentiating between cursor control provided by EEG control and cursor control provided by EMG contamination.
SIGNIFICANCE:
Artifacts such as EMG are common in EEG recordings. Comprehensive spectral and topographical analyses are necessary to detect them and ensure that they do not masquerade as, or interfere with acquisition of, actual EEG-based cursor control.10abrain-computer interface10aEEG10aElectroencephalography10aLearning10amu rhythm10asensorimotor cortex1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1558918402522nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245008500055210006900140260001200209300001400221490000700235520169700242653003101939653002701970653001601997653001302013653001402026653002502040653001502065653001902080653002402099100002602123700002602149700002102175856004802196       2003                        eng d  a0301-051100aBrain-computer interface (BCI) operation: optimizing information transfer rates.0 aBraincomputer interface BCI operation optimizing information tra  c07/2003  a237–2510 v633 aPeople can learn to control mu (8-12 Hz) or beta (18-25 Hz) rhythm amplitude in the EEG recorded over sensorimotor cortex and use it to move a cursor to a target on a video screen. In the present version of the cursor movement task, vertical cursor movement is a linear function of mu or beta rhythm amplitude. At the same time the cursor moves horizontally from left to right at a fixed rate. A target occupies 50% (2-target task) to 20% (5-target task) of the right edge of the screen. The user's task is to move the cursor vertically so that it hits the target when it reaches the right edge. The goal of the present study was to optimize system performance. To accomplish this, we evaluated the impact on system performance of number of targets (i.e. 2-5) and trial duration (i.e. horizontal movement time from 1 to 4 s). Performance was measured as accuracy (percent of targets selected correctly) and also as bit rate (bits/min) (which incorporates, in addition to accuracy, speed and the number of possible targets). Accuracy declined as target number increased. At the same time, for six of eight users, four targets yielded the maximum bit rate. Accuracy increased as movement time increased. At the same time, the movement time with the highest bit rate varied across users from 2 to 4 s. These results indicate that task parameters such as target number and trial duration can markedly affect system performance. They also indicate that optimal parameter values vary across users. Selection of parameters suited both to the specific user and the requirements of the specific application is likely to be a key factor in maximizing the success of EEG-based communication and control.10aaugmentative communication10aElectroencephalography10ainformation10aLearning10amu rhythm10aoperant conditioning10aprosthesis10aRehabilitation10asensorimotor cortex1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12853169