EEG-based communication: evaluation of alternative signal prediction methods.

TitleEEG-based communication: evaluation of alternative signal prediction methods.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication1997
AuthorsRamoser, H, Wolpaw, J, Pfurtscheller, G
JournalBiomedizinische Technik. Biomedical engineering
Date Published09/1997
KeywordsSomatosensory Cortex

Individuals can learn to control the amplitude of EEG activity in specific frequency bands over sensorimotor cortex and use it to move a cursor to a target on a computer screen. For one-dimensional (i.e., vertical) cursor movement, a linear equation translates the EEG activity into cursor movement. To translate an individual's EEG control into cursor control as effectively as possible, the intercept in this equation, which determines whether upward or downward movement occurs, should be set so that top and bottom targets are equally accessible. The present study compares alternative methods for using an individual's previous performance to select the intercept for subsequent trials. In offline analyses, five different intercept selection methods were applied to EEG data collected while trained subjects were moving the cursor to targets at the top or bottom edge of the screen. In the first two methods-moving average, and weighted sum-a single intercept was selected for the entire 1-2 sec period of each trial. In the other three methods-blocked moving average, blocked weighted sum, and blocked recursive sum (a variation of the weighted sum)-an intercept was selected for each 200-ms segment of the trial. The results from these methods were compared in regard to their balance between upward and downward movements and their consistency of performance across trials. For all subjects combined, the five methods performed similarly. However, performance across subjects was more consistent for the moving average, blocked moving average, and blocked recursive sum methods than for the weighted sum and blocked weighted sum methods. Due to its consistent performance and its computational simplicity, the moving average method, using the five most recent pairs of top and bottom trials, appears to be the method of choice.


You are here