How Many People Could Use an SSVEP BCI?

Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) are communication systems that allow people to send messages or commands without movement. BCIs rely on different types of signals in the electroencephalogram (EEG), typically P300s, steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEP), or event-related desynchronization. Early BCI systems were often evaluated with a selected group of subjects. Also, many articles do not mention data from subjects who performed poorly. These and other factors have made it difficult to estimate how many people could use different BCIs. The present study explored how many subjects could use an SSVEP BCI. We recorded data from 53 subjects while they participated in 1–4 runs that were each 4 min long. During these runs, the subjects focused on one of four LEDs that each flickered at a different frequency. The eight channel EEG data were analyzed with a minimum energy parameter estimation algorithm and classified with linear discriminant analysis into one of the four classes. Online results showed that SSVEP BCIs could provide effective communication for all 53 subjects, resulting in a grand average accuracy of 95.5%. About 96.2% of the subjects reached an accuracy above 80%, and nobody was below 60%. This study showed that SSVEP based BCI systems can reach very high accuracies after only a very short training period. The SSVEP approach worked for all participating subjects, who attained accuracy well above chance level. This is important because it shows that SSVEP BCIs could provide communication for some users when other approaches might not work for them.

[1]  Xiaorong Gao,et al.  An online multi-channel SSVEP-based brain–computer interface using a canonical correlation analysis method , 2009, Journal of neural engineering.

[2]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  How many people are able to operate an EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI)? , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[3]  B. Allison,et al.  BCI Demographics: How Many (and What Kinds of) People Can Use an SSVEP BCI? , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[4]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Could Anyone Use a BCI? , 2010, Brain-Computer Interfaces.

[5]  W. A. Sarnacki,et al.  Electroencephalographic (EEG) control of three-dimensional movement , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

[6]  Nicholas P. Szrama,et al.  Using the electrocorticographic speech network to control a brain–computer interface in humans , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[7]  H. Flor,et al.  A spelling device for the paralysed , 1999, Nature.

[8]  E. Sellers,et al.  How many people are able to control a P300-based brain–computer interface (BCI)? , 2009, Neuroscience Letters.

[9]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  A P300-based brain–computer interface for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 2008, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[10]  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.

[11]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control. , 2011, Communications of the ACM.

[12]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  An SSVEP BCI to Control a Hand Orthosis for Persons With Tetraplegia , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

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

[14]  G Calhoun,et al.  Brain-computer interfaces based on the steady-state visual-evoked response. , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[15]  Andrzej Cichocki,et al.  Fully Online Multicommand Brain-Computer Interface with Visual Neurofeedback Using SSVEP Paradigm , 2007, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[16]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Poor performance in SSVEP BCIs: Are worse subjects just slower? , 2012, 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[17]  Hadi Aliakbarpour,et al.  Multiclass brain computer interface based on visual attention , 2009, ESANN.

[18]  Ivan Volosyak,et al.  Multiple Channel Detection of Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials for Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[19]  Xiaorong Gao,et al.  A BCI-based environmental controller for the motion-disabled. , 2003, IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[20]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  Rapid prototyping of an EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI) , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[21]  Karla Felix Navarro,et al.  A Comprehensive Survey of Brain Interface Technology Designs , 2007, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[22]  For Spelling , 1899 .

[23]  Jon A. Mukand,et al.  Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia , 2006, Nature.

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

[25]  J. Huggins,et al.  What would brain-computer interface users want? Opinions and priorities of potential users with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 2011, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis : official publication of the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Motor Neuron Diseases.

[26]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Hybrid BCI classification via dynamic re-weighting , 2012 .

[27]  Dean J Krusienski,et al.  A comparison of classification techniques for the P300 Speller , 2006, Journal of neural engineering.

[28]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  The Hybrid BCI , 2010, Frontiers in Neuroscience.