03178nas a2200421 4500008004100000022001400041245009800055210006900153260001200222300001100234490000700245520196800252653001002220653000902230653001502239653002402254653003002278653003602308653002702344653002102371653003102392653001102423653001102434653000902445653002402454653001602478653001702494653002202511653002802533100002502561700001602586700001902602700002002621700002202641700002102663700002402684856004802708 2014 eng d a1741-255200aA practical, intuitive brain-computer interface for communicating 'yes' or 'no' by listening.0 apractical intuitive braincomputer interface for communicating ye c06/2014 a0350030 v113 aOBJECTIVE: Previous work has shown that it is possible to build an EEG-based binary brain-computer interface system (BCI) driven purely by shifts of attention to auditory stimuli. However, previous studies used abrupt, abstract stimuli that are often perceived as harsh and unpleasant, and whose lack of inherent meaning may make the interface unintuitive and difficult for beginners. We aimed to establish whether we could transition to a system based on more natural, intuitive stimuli (spoken words 'yes' and 'no') without loss of performance, and whether the system could be used by people in the locked-in state. APPROACH: We performed a counterbalanced, interleaved within-subject comparison between an auditory streaming BCI that used beep stimuli, and one that used word stimuli. Fourteen healthy volunteers performed two sessions each, on separate days. We also collected preliminary data from two subjects with advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), who used the word-based system to answer a set of simple yes-no questions. MAIN RESULTS: The N1, N2 and P3 event-related potentials elicited by words varied more between subjects than those elicited by beeps. However, the difference between responses to attended and unattended stimuli was more consistent with words than beeps. Healthy subjects' performance with word stimuli (mean 77% ± 3.3 s.e.) was slightly but not significantly better than their performance with beep stimuli (mean 73% ± 2.8 s.e.). The two subjects with ALS used the word-based BCI to answer questions with a level of accuracy similar to that of the healthy subjects. SIGNIFICANCE: Since performance using word stimuli was at least as good as performance using beeps, we recommend that auditory streaming BCI systems be built with word stimuli to make the system more pleasant and intuitive. Our preliminary data show that word-based streaming BCI is a promising tool for communication by people who are locked in.10aAdult10aAged10aAlgorithms10aAuditory Perception10abrain-computer interfaces10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aElectroencephalography10aEquipment Design10aEquipment Failure Analysis10aFemale10aHumans10aMale10aMan-Machine Systems10aMiddle Aged10aQuadriplegia10aTreatment Outcome10aUser-Computer Interface1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aRicci, Erin1 aHaider, Sameah1 aMcCane, Lynn, M1 aHeckman, Susan, M1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aVaughan, Theresa, M uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2483827801758nas a2200361 4500008004100000022001400041245012300055210006900178260001200247300001100259490000600270520064200276653001500918653001000933653001400943653002400957653002700981653003501008653001101043653002501054653003501079653002301114653001401137653004101151653003401192653002801226653001201254100001901266700002501285700002001310700001801330856004801348 2009 eng d a1741-255200aOverlap and refractory effects in a brain-computer interface speller based on the visual P300 event-related potential.0 aOverlap and refractory effects in a braincomputer interface spel c04/2009 a0260030 v63 a
We reveal the presence of refractory and overlap effects in the event-related potentials in visual P300 speller datasets, and we show their negative impact on the performance of the system. This finding has important implications for how to encode the letters that can be selected for communication. However, we show that such effects are dependent on stimulus parameters: an alternative stimulus type based on apparent motion suffers less from the refractory effects and leads to an improved letter prediction performance.
10aAlgorithms10aBrain10aCognition10aComputer Simulation10aElectroencephalography10aEvent-Related Potentials, P30010aHumans10aModels, Neurological10aPattern Recognition, Automated10aPhotic Stimulation10aSemantics10aSignal Processing, Computer-Assisted10aTask Performance and Analysis10aUser-Computer Interface10aWriting1 aMartens, S M M1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aFarquhar, Jason1 aSchölkopf, B uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1925546202785nas 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 aWe 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/16792289