Towards a symbiotic brain–computer interface: exploring the application–decoder interaction

OBJECTIVE State of the art brain-computer interface (BCI) research focuses on improving individual components such as the application or the decoder that converts the user's brain activity to control signals. In this study, we investigate the interaction between these components in the P300 speller, a BCI for communication. We introduce a synergistic approach in which the stimulus presentation sequence is modified to enhance the machine learning decoding. In this way we aim for an improved overall BCI performance. APPROACH First, a new stimulus presentation paradigm is introduced which provides us flexibility in tuning the sequence of visual stimuli presented to the user. Next, an experimental setup in which this paradigm is compared to other paradigms uncovers the underlying mechanism of the interdependence between the application and the performance of the decoder. MAIN RESULTS Extensive analysis of the experimental results reveals the changing requirements of the decoder concerning the data recorded during the spelling session. When few data is recorded, the balance in the number of target and non-target stimuli shown to the user is more important than the signal-to-noise rate (SNR) of the recorded response signals. Only when more data has been collected, the SNR becomes the dominant factor. SIGNIFICANCE For BCIs in general, knowing the dominant factor that affects the decoder performance and being able to respond to it is of utmost importance to improve system performance. For the P300 speller, the proposed tunable paradigm offers the possibility to tune the application to the decoder's needs at any time and, as such, fully exploit this application-decoder interaction.

[1]  M. Carrillo-de-la-Peña,et al.  The effect of motivational instructions on P300 amplitude , 2000, Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology.

[2]  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.

[3]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  Integrating dynamic stopping, transfer learning and language models in an adaptive zero-training ERP speller , 2014, Journal of neural engineering.

[4]  Yang Yu,et al.  A Dynamically Optimized SSVEP Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) Speller , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[5]  Benjamin Schrauwen,et al.  A Bayesian Model for Exploiting Application Constraints to Enable Unsupervised Training of a P300-based BCI , 2012, PloS one.

[6]  Stefan Haufe,et al.  Optimizing event-related potential based brain-computer interfaces: a systematic evaluation of dynamic stopping methods. , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.

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

[8]  Eric W. Sellers,et al.  A general P300 brain–computer interface presentation paradigm based on performance guided constraints , 2012, Neuroscience Letters.

[9]  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.

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

[11]  Kyuwan Choi,et al.  Control of a Wheelchair by Motor Imagery in Real Time , 2008, IDEAL.

[12]  E. Donchin Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise? , 1981, Psychophysiology.

[13]  J J Vidal,et al.  Toward direct brain-computer communication. , 1973, Annual review of biophysics and bioengineering.

[14]  Reinhold Scherer,et al.  A fully on-line adaptive BCI , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[15]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Is It Significant? Guidelines for Reporting BCI Performance , 2012 .

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

[17]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  True Zero-Training Brain-Computer Interfacing – An Online Study , 2014, PloS one.

[18]  O. Bertrand,et al.  Size enhancement coupled with intensification of symbols improves P300 Speller accuracy , 2008 .

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

[20]  Luca Mainardi,et al.  Performance measurement for brain–computer or brain–machine interfaces: a tutorial , 2014, Journal of neural engineering.

[21]  Benjamin Schrauwen,et al.  A Unified Probabilistic Approach to Improve Spelling in an Event-Related Potential-Based Brain–Computer Interface , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[22]  Xingyu Wang,et al.  Optimized stimulus presentation patterns for an event-related potential EEG-based brain–computer interface , 2011, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[23]  Cuntai Guan,et al.  High performance P300 speller for brain-computer interface , 2004, IEEE International Workshop on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, 2004..

[24]  A. Kübler,et al.  Flashing characters with famous faces improves ERP-based brain–computer interface performance , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[25]  Dennis J. McFarland,et al.  The P300-based brain–computer interface (BCI): Effects of stimulus rate , 2011, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[26]  R. Fazel-Rezai,et al.  Human Error in P300 Speller Paradigm for Brain-Computer Interface , 2007, 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[27]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Towards adaptive classification for BCI , 2006, Journal of neural engineering.

[28]  R. Heuser Surprise, surprise , 2014, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

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

[30]  Gerwin Schalk,et al.  A Practical Guide to Brain–Computer Interfacing with BCI2000: General-Purpose Software for Brain-Computer Interface Research, Data Acquisition, Stimulus Presentation, and Brain Monitoring , 2010 .

[31]  E Donchin,et al.  The mental prosthesis: assessing the speed of a P300-based brain-computer interface. , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[32]  Charles X. Ling,et al.  AUC: A Better Measure than Accuracy in Comparing Learning Algorithms , 2003, Canadian Conference on AI.

[33]  Fanglin Chen,et al.  A Speedy Hybrid BCI Spelling Approach Combining P300 and SSVEP , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[34]  Xingyu Wang,et al.  A combined brain–computer interface based on P300 potentials and motion-onset visual evoked potentials , 2012, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.