The effects of stimulus timing features on P300 speller performance

OBJECTIVE Despite numerous examinations of factors affecting P300 speller performance, the impact of stimulus presentation parameters remains incompletely understood. This study examines the effects of four distinct stimulus presentation parameters (stimulus-off time [ISI(∗)], interstimulus interval [ISI], flash duration, and flash-duration:ISI ratio) on the accuracy and efficiency of the P300 speller performance. METHODS EEG data from a 32-electrode set were recorded from six subjects using a row-column paradigm of the speller task and analyzed offline. RESULTS P300 speller accuracy is affected by the number of trial repetitions (F(14,354) = 69.002, p < 0.0001), as expected. In addition, longer ISI and ISI(∗) times resulted in higher accuracy and characters per minute [CPM] rates. Subsets of the entire group (i.e. good vs. poor performers) were compared to show consistency of performance trends despite great variance among subjects. Moreover, the same significant effects were observed whether using the entire 32-electrode dataset or the reduced 8-channel set described by Sharbrough et al. (1991). CONCLUSIONS Despite variability in user performance, both ISI(∗) and ISI can affect P300 speller performance. SIGNIFICANCE P300 system optimization must consider critical stimulus timing features including ISI(∗) and ISI. Further characterization of the impact of these timing features in online experiments is warranted and the differential effect on accuracy and CPM should be more comprehensively explored.

[1]  C. Gonsalvez,et al.  Target-to-target interval versus probability effects on P300 in one- and two-tone tasks. , 2003, Psychophysiology.

[2]  Xingyu Wang,et al.  A new P300 stimulus presentation pattern for EEG-based spelling systems , 2010, Biomedizinische Technik. Biomedical engineering.

[3]  N. Birbaumer,et al.  BCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[4]  Nader Pouratian,et al.  Natural language processing with dynamic classification improves P300 speller accuracy and bit rate , 2012, Journal of neural engineering.

[5]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  A P300 event-related potential brain–computer interface (BCI): The effects of matrix size and inter stimulus interval on performance , 2006, Biological Psychology.

[6]  H. Lüders,et al.  American Electroencephalographic Society Guidelines for Standard Electrode Position Nomenclature , 1991, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

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

[8]  Helge J. Ritter,et al.  BCI competition 2003-data set IIb: support vector machines for the P300 speller paradigm , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  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.

[10]  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.

[11]  G.F. Inbar,et al.  An improved P300-based brain-computer interface , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[12]  Brendan Z Allison,et al.  Effects of SOA and flash pattern manipulations on ERPs, performance, and preference: implications for a BCI system. , 2006, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

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

[14]  Dean J Krusienski,et al.  A comparison of classification techniques for the P300 Speller , 2006, Journal of neural engineering.

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

[16]  W. A. Sarnacki,et al.  Brain–computer interface (BCI) operation: optimizing information transfer rates , 2003, Biological Psychology.