Impact of stimulus configuration on steady state visual evoked potentials (SSVEP) response

We investigate the impact of configuration of multistimuli presented in computer monitor to steady-state visual evoked potential response. The configuration of stimuli is defined by three parameters-the size of stimuli, the separation distance between the stimuli and the layout. Two 4 by 4 checkerboards in twelve configurations were presented to the subjects. 9 subjects participated in this study. Subjects’ electroencephalography (EEG) data was off-line analyzed by using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). The mean classification rates of configuration with bigger size and larger separation distance is higher than those configurations with smaller size and shorter separation distance. These results suggest that the stimulus size is the most important parameter of three, followed by the separation distance and layout.

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

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

[3]  Reinhold Scherer,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces used for Virtual Reality Control , 2010 .

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

[5]  Ivan Volosyak,et al.  Brain–computer interface using water-based electrodes , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

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

[7]  Ivan Volosyak,et al.  STEADY-STATE VISUAL EVOKED POTENTIAL RESPONSE - IMPACT OF THE TIME SEGMENT LENGTH , 2010 .

[8]  Ronald M. Aarts,et al.  A Survey of Stimulation Methods Used in SSVEP-Based BCIs , 2010, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[9]  M. Hallett,et al.  A high performance sensorimotor beta rhythm-based brain–computer interface associated with human natural motor behavior , 2008, Journal of neural engineering.

[10]  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.

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

[12]  T. J. Sullivan,et al.  A user-friendly SSVEP-based brain–computer interface using a time-domain classifier , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

[13]  Xiaorong Gao,et al.  Design and implementation of a brain-computer interface with high transfer rates , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

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

[15]  Ivan Volosyak,et al.  SSVEP-based Bremen–BCI interface—boosting information transfer rates , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[16]  Dezhong Yao,et al.  Frequency detection with stability coefficient for steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based BCIs. , 2008, Journal of neural engineering.