Novel Protocols for P300-Based Brain–Computer Interfaces

The oddball protocol is often used in brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) to induce P300 ERPs, although, recently, some issues have been shown to detrimentally effect its performance. In this paper, we study a new periodic protocol and explore whether it can compete with the standard oddball protocol within the context of a BCI mouse. We found that the new protocol consistently and significantly outperforms the standard oddball protocol in relation to information transfer rates (33 bits/min for the former and 22 bits/min for the latter, measured at 90% accuracy) as well as P300 amplitudes. Furthermore, we performed a comparison of two periodic protocols with two less conventional oddball-like protocols that reveals the importance of the interactions between task and sequence in determining the success of a protocol.

[1]  Jonathan R Wolpaw,et al.  Control of a two-dimensional movement signal by a noninvasive brain-computer interface in humans. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[3]  John P. Donoghue,et al.  Connecting cortex to machines: recent advances in brain interfaces , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[4]  Luca Citi,et al.  Analogue evolutionary brain computer interfaces [Application Notes] , 2009, IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine.

[5]  Luca Citi,et al.  Exploring multiple protocols for a brain-computer interface mouse , 2010, 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology.

[6]  Gerwin Schalk,et al.  Brain–computer symbiosis , 2008, Journal of neural engineering.

[7]  E Donchin,et al.  Brain-computer interface technology: a review of the first international meeting. , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[8]  Jan B. F. van Erp,et al.  A Tactile P300 Brain-Computer Interface , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

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

[10]  Francesco Piccione,et al.  User adaptive BCIs: SSVEP and P300 based interfaces , 2003, PsychNology J..

[11]  Luca Citi,et al.  Documenting, modelling and exploiting P300 amplitude changes due to variable target delays in Donchin's speller , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

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

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

[14]  N. Birbaumer,et al.  The Influence of Psychological State and Motivation on Brain–Computer Interface Performance in Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis – a Longitudinal Study , 2010, Front. Neuropharma..

[15]  S M M Martens,et al.  Overlap and refractory effects in a brain–computer interface speller based on the visual P300 event-related potential , 2009, Journal of neural engineering.

[16]  D L Woods,et al.  The recovery functions of auditory event-related potentials during split-second discriminations. , 1986, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[17]  B. Blankertz,et al.  (C)overt attention and visual speller design in an ERP-based brain-computer interface , 2010, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[18]  Emanuel Donchin,et al.  Definition, Identification, and Reliability of Measurement of the P300 Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential , 1987 .

[19]  Luca Citi,et al.  Analogue evolutionary brain computer interfaces , 2009 .

[20]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Does the ‘P300’ speller depend on eye gaze? , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

[21]  M. Salvaris,et al.  Novel sequential protocols for a ERP based BCI mouse , 2011, 2011 5th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering.

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

[23]  J. Polich,et al.  P300 amplitude is determined by target-to-target interval. , 2002, Psychophysiology.

[24]  C. Cinel,et al.  P300-Based BCI Mouse With Genetically-Optimized Analogue Control , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[25]  K L Shapiro,et al.  Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? . , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  Corinna Cortes,et al.  Support-Vector Networks , 1995, Machine Learning.

[27]  Francisco Sepulveda,et al.  Perceptual errors in the Farwell and Donchin matrix speller , 2009, 2009 4th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering.

[28]  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.

[29]  Alain Rakotomamonjy,et al.  BCI Competition III: Dataset II- Ensemble of SVMs for BCI P300 Speller , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[30]  J. Polich.  Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[31]  W. Pritchard.  Psychophysiology of P300. , 1981, Psychological bulletin.

[32]  Niels Birbaumer,et al.  Brain–computer-interface research: Coming of age , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[33]  E. Donchin,et al.  On quantifying surprise: the variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability. , 1977, Psychophysiology.

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

[35]  N. Kanwisher.  Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation , 1987, Cognition.

[36]  Luca Citi,et al.  Possible sources of perceptual errors in P300-based speller paradigm , 2004 .