Calibration-less detection of steady-state visual evoked potentials-comparisons and combinations of methods

Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) represent a great challenge in signal processing and machine learning, because it is difficult to extract discriminant features corresponding to particular brain responses due to the low signal-to-noise ratio of the EEG signal. Steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) are one of the most reliable brain responses to detect in the EEG signal. Although advanced supervised machine learning techniques can improve the classification performance of SSVEP responses, obtaining robust techniques that do not rely on training a classifier is also important. We propose to analyze, compare, and combine the performance of three state-of-the-art techniques for the detection of SSVEP responses across 10 subjects and different time segments to determine if robust classification can be obtained without subject-specific rigorous analysis using a combination of one or more techniques. The methods include two approaches based on spatial filtering, and canonical correlation analysis. The results support the conclusion that the choice of the method does not depend on the time segment, and the current techniques provide equivalent performance.

[1]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  Toward Brain-Computer Interfacing (Neural Information Processing) , 2007 .

[2]  Hubert Cecotti,et al.  Time Delay Neural Network with Fourier transform for multiple channel detection of Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials for Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2008, 2008 16th European Signal Processing Conference.

[3]  N. Birbaumer Breaking the silence: brain-computer interfaces (BCI) for communication and motor control. , 2006, Psychophysiology.

[4]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[5]  Reinhold Scherer,et al.  Steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based communication: impact of harmonic frequency components , 2005, Journal of neural engineering.

[6]  Hubert Cecotti,et al.  Effect of the visual signal structure on Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials detection , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

[7]  Hubert Cecotti,et al.  Spelling with non-invasive Brain–Computer Interfaces – Current and future trends , 2011, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

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

[9]  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.

[10]  R. Silberstein,et al.  Steady-state visual evoked potentials and travelling waves , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[11]  K.-R. Muller,et al.  Optimizing Spatial filters for Robust EEG Single-Trial Analysis , 2008, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.

[12]  Jonathan R Wolpaw,et al.  Brain–computer interface systems: progress and prospects , 2007, Expert review of medical devices.

[13]  D. Regan Human brain electrophysiology: Evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine , 1989 .

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

[15]  Tzyy-Ping Jung,et al.  Measuring Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials from non-hair-bearing areas , 2012, 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[16]  Wei Wu,et al.  Frequency recognition based on canonical correlation analysis for SSVEP-based BCIs , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  A. Cichocki,et al.  Steady-state visually evoked potentials: Focus on essential paradigms and future perspectives , 2010, Progress in Neurobiology.

[18]  Hubert Cecotti,et al.  A time-frequency convolutional neural network for the offline classification of steady-state visual evoked potential responses , 2011, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[19]  Ivan Volosyak,et al.  Evaluation of an SSVEP based Brain-Computer Interface on the command and application levels , 2009, 2009 4th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering.

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

[21]  Gernot R. Müller-Putz,et al.  Control of an Electrical Prosthesis With an SSVEP-Based BCI , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[22]  Damien Coyle,et al.  Games, Gameplay, and BCI: The State of the Art , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games.

[23]  John R. Smith,et al.  Steady-State VEP-Based Brain-Computer Interface Control in an Immersive 3D Gaming Environment , 2005, EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process..

[24]  Dezhong Yao,et al.  Stimulator selection in SSVEP-based BCI. , 2008, Medical engineering & physics.

[25]  D.J. McFarland,et al.  The wadsworth BCI research and development program: at home with BCI , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[26]  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.

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

[28]  Feng Wan,et al.  A comparison of minimum energy combination and canonical correlation analysis for SSVEP detection , 2011, 2011 5th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering.