Evaluating True BCI Communication Rate through Mutual Information and Language Models

Brain-computer interface (BCI) systems are a promising means for restoring communication to patients suffering from “locked-in” syndrome. Research to improve system performance primarily focuses on means to overcome the low signal to noise ratio of electroencephalogric (EEG) recordings. However, the literature and methods are difficult to compare due to the array of evaluation metrics and assumptions underlying them, including that: 1) all characters are equally probable, 2) character selection is memoryless, and 3) errors occur completely at random. The standardization of evaluation metrics that more accurately reflect the amount of information contained in BCI language output is critical to make progress. We present a mutual information-based metric that incorporates prior information and a model of systematic errors. The parameters of a system used in one study were re-optimized, showing that the metric used in optimization significantly affects the parameter values chosen and the resulting system performance. The results of 11 BCI communication studies were then evaluated using different metrics, including those previously used in BCI literature and the newly advocated metric. Six studies' results varied based on the metric used for evaluation and the proposed metric produced results that differed from those originally published in two of the studies. Standardizing metrics to accurately reflect the rate of information transmission is critical to properly evaluate and compare BCI communication systems and advance the field in an unbiased manner.

[1]  Zoran Nenadic,et al.  Pushing the Communication Speed Limit of a Noninvasive BCI Speller , 2012, ArXiv.

[2]  Benjamin Blankertz,et al.  THE BERLIN BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE PRESENTS THE NOVEL MENTAL TYPEWRITER HEX-O-SPELL , 2006 .

[3]  Dennis J. McFarland,et al.  The P300-based brain–computer interface (BCI): Effects of stimulus rate , 2011, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[4]  H. Ritter,et al.  Generalizing to new subjects in brain-computer interfacing , 2004, The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[5]  N. Birbaumer,et al.  An auditory oddball (P300) spelling system for brain-computer interfaces. , 2009, Psychophysiology.

[6]  Dennis J. McFarland,et al.  Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[7]  Fusheng Yang,et al.  BCI competition 2003-data set IIb: enhancing P300 wave detection using ICA-based subspace projections for BCI applications , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  Helge J. Ritter,et al.  BCI competition 2003-data set IIb: support vector machines for the P300 speller paradigm , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  A P300 event-related potential brain–computer interface (BCI): The effects of matrix size and inter stimulus interval on performance , 2006, Biological Psychology.

[10]  Xingyu Wang,et al.  Optimized stimulus presentation patterns for an event-related potential EEG-based brain–computer interface , 2011, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[11]  W. A. Sarnacki,et al.  Brain–computer interface (BCI) operation: optimizing information transfer rates , 2003, Biological Psychology.

[12]  E. Donchin,et al.  Talking off the top of your head: toward a mental prosthesis utilizing event-related brain potentials. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[13]  Hubert Cecotti,et al.  A Self-Paced and Calibration-Less SSVEP-Based Brain–Computer Interface Speller , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[14]  Michael Tangermann,et al.  Listen, You are Writing! Speeding up Online Spelling with a Dynamic Auditory BCI , 2011, Front. Neurosci..

[15]  G.F. Inbar,et al.  An improved P300-based brain-computer interface , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[16]  Xiao Hu,et al.  The effects of stimulus timing features on P300 speller performance , 2013, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[17]  Eric W. Sellers,et al.  Predictive Spelling With a P300-Based Brain–Computer Interface: Increasing the Rate of Communication , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[18]  Fazlollah M. Reza,et al.  Introduction to Information Theory , 2004, Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering.

[19]  Nader Pouratian,et al.  Natural language processing with dynamic classification improves P300 speller accuracy and bit rate , 2012, Journal of neural engineering.

[20]  Fanglin Chen,et al.  A novel hybrid BCI speller based on the incorporation of SSVEP into the P300 paradigm , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.

[21]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  A novel P300-based brain–computer interface stimulus presentation paradigm: Moving beyond rows and columns , 2010, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[22]  Masud Mansuripur,et al.  Introduction to information theory , 1986 .