Latency correction of error potentials between different experiments reduces calibration time for single-trial classification

One fundamental limitation of EEG-based brain-computer interfaces is the time needed to calibrate the system prior to the detection of signals, due to the wide variety of issues affecting the EEG measurements. For event-related potentials (ERP), one of these sources of variability is the application performed: Protocols with different cognitive workloads might yield to different latencies of the ERPs. In this sense, it is still not clear the effect that these latency variations have on the single-trial classification. This work studies the differences in the latencies of error potentials across three experiments with increasing cognitive workloads. A delay-correction algorithm based on the cross-correlation of the averaged signals is presented, and tested with a single-trial classification of the signals. The results showed that latency variations exist between different protocols, and that it is feasible to re-use data from previous experiments to calibrate a classifier able to detect the signals of a new experiment, thus reducing the calibration time.

[1]  Dezhong Yao,et al.  Spatio-temporal dynamics of visual selective attention identified by a common spatial pattern decomposition method , 2009, Brain Research.

[2]  Motoaki Kawanabe,et al.  Toward Unsupervised Adaptation of LDA for Brain–Computer Interfaces , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[3]  Jdel.R. Millan,et al.  On the need for on-line learning in brain-computer interfaces , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37541).

[4]  J. Polich,et al.  On the relationship between EEG and P300: individual differences, aging, and ultradian rhythms. , 1997, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[5]  Iñaki Iturrate,et al.  A Noninvasive Brain-Actuated Wheelchair Based on a P300 Neurophysiological Protocol and Automated Navigation , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[6]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  Neurophysiological predictor of SMR-based BCI performance , 2010, NeuroImage.

[7]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  Co-adaptive calibration to improve BCI efficiency , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[8]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. , 1977, Science.

[9]  C. Neuper,et al.  Combining Brain–Computer Interfaces and Assistive Technologies: State-of-the-Art and Challenges , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

[10]  R Chavarriaga,et al.  Learning From EEG Error-Related Potentials in Noninvasive Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[11]  Jonas K. Olofsson,et al.  Affective picture processing: An integrative review of ERP findings , 2008, Biological Psychology.

[12]  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.

[13]  J. Millán,et al.  Spatio-temporal filtering for EEG error related potentials. , 2011 .