Towards an EEG-based Intuitive BCI Communication System Using Imagined Speech and Visual Imagery

Communication using brain-computer interface (BCI) has developed in attempts toward an intuitive system by decoding the imagined speech or visual imagery. However, discrimination between the two paradigms may be ambiguous because the user intention contains their original meaning. A clear distinction between the two paradigms may facilitate the active use of them leading to an intuitive BCI conversation system. In this study, we compared imagined speech and visual imagery in the perspective of its presence, spatial features, and classification performance based on electroencephalography. Seven subjects performed both imagined speech and visual imagery of twelve words/phrases. We showed the presence of the two paradigms, having distinct brain region from each other. The maximum thirteen-class classification accuracy including rest class was 34.2 % for imagined speech and 26.7 % for visual imagery. Therefore, we investigated the possibility of multiclass classification of more than ten classes in both paradigms, showing the potential of them to be used in the real world communication system. These findings could further be utilized in the intuitive communication for locked-in patients sending commands to the external world simply by thinking of ‘the very thing’ that the user wants to deliver.

[1]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Mental Imagery: Functional Mechanisms and Clinical Applications , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  Clemens Brunner,et al.  Better than random? A closer look on BCI results , 2008 .

[3]  Boreom Lee,et al.  Multiclass Classification of Word Imagination Speech With Hybrid Connectivity Features , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[4]  John Williamson,et al.  EEG dataset and OpenBMI toolbox for three BCI paradigms: an investigation into BCI illiteracy , 2019, GigaScience.

[5]  Panagiotis Artemiadis,et al.  Inferring imagined speech using EEG signals: a new approach using Riemannian manifold features , 2018, Journal of neural engineering.

[6]  Mihaly Benda,et al.  Brain–Computer Interface Spellers: A Review , 2018, Brain sciences.

[7]  K. Müller,et al.  Effect of higher frequency on the classification of steady-state visual evoked potentials , 2016, Journal of neural engineering.

[8]  Tanja Schultz,et al.  Biosignal-Based Spoken Communication: A Survey , 2017, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[9]  João Andrade,et al.  Pure visual imagery as a potential approach to achieve three classes of control for implementation of BCI in non-motor disorders , 2017, Journal of neural engineering.

[10]  Stefan Haufe,et al.  Single-trial analysis and classification of ERP components — A tutorial , 2011, NeuroImage.

[11]  S. Gielen,et al.  The brain–computer interface cycle , 2009, Journal of neural engineering.

[12]  Iñaki Iturrate,et al.  Word pair classification during imagined speech using direct brain recordings , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[13]  Makoto Sato,et al.  Single-trial classification of vowel speech imagery using common spatial patterns , 2009, Neural Networks.

[14]  Tom Chau,et al.  Online classification of imagined speech using functional near-infrared spectroscopy signals , 2018, Journal of neural engineering.

[15]  Xiaorong Gao,et al.  One-Versus-the-Rest(OVR) Algorithm: An Extension of Common Spatial Patterns(CSP) Algorithm to Multi-class Case , 2005, 2005 IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 27th Annual Conference.

[16]  Dimitri Van De Ville,et al.  Brain decoding: Opportunities and challenges for pattern recognition , 2012, Pattern Recognit..

[17]  Jussi T. Lindgren,et al.  Attending to Visual Stimuli versus Performing Visual Imagery as a Control Strategy for EEG-based Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[18]  Anna Gawlinski,et al.  Communication boards in critical care: patients' views. , 2006, Applied nursing research : ANR.

[19]  Siamac Fazli,et al.  Brain Computer Interfacing: A Multi-Modal Perspective , 2013, J. Comput. Sci. Eng..

[20]  G. Schalk,et al.  Decoding vowels and consonants in spoken and imagined words using electrocorticographic signals in humans , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[21]  John Williamson,et al.  A High Performance Spelling System based on EEG-EOG Signals With Visual Feedback , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[22]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  An Efficient ERP-Based Brain-Computer Interface Using Random Set Presentation and Face Familiarity , 2014, PloS one.

[23]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  A lower limb exoskeleton control system based on steady state visual evoked potentials , 2015, Journal of neural engineering.

[24]  Tom Chau,et al.  EEG Classification of Covert Speech Using Regularized Neural Networks , 2017, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[25]  S. Coyle,et al.  Brain–computer interfaces: a review , 2003 .

[26]  Frank Rudzicz,et al.  Classifying phonological categories in imagined and articulated speech , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

[27]  Anabela Afonso,et al.  Overview of Friedman’s Test and Post-hoc Analysis , 2015, Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput..

[28]  Richard A. Andersen,et al.  Toward More Versatile and Intuitive Cortical Brain–Machine Interfaces , 2014, Current Biology.