Online co-adaptive brain-computer interfacing: Preliminary results in individuals with spinal cord injury

Co-adaptive training paradigms for event-related desynchronization (ERD) based brain-computer interfaces (BCI) have proven effective for system setup and training of healthy users. However, there is little evidence as to whether co-adaptive ERD based BCI training paradigms could also benefit severely disabled users, including persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). Here, we present a preliminary study involving individuals with SCI at cervical level. In a cue-paced paradigm, our co-adaptive BCI analyzes the electroencephalogram from three bipolar derivations (C3, Cz, and C4), while the user alternately performs right hand movement imagery (MI), left hand MI and relax with eyes open. After less than five minutes of data collection, the BCI auto-calibrates and provides feedback for the MI task that can be classified better against relax with eyes open. The BCI then regularly recalibrates the underlying classifier model. In every calibration step, the system performs rigorous outlier rejection, selects the one out of six predefined logarithmic bandpower features (9 to 14 and 16 to 26Hz for the bipolars at C3, Cz and C4) that shows highest discriminability, and trains a linear discriminant analysis classifier. In under 30 min of training, all six tetraplegic users reached better than chance (p=0.01) online ERD based BCI control at an overall mean accuracy of 69.5 ± 6.4 %. These positive findings encourage us to evaluate the efficacy of adaptive BCI systems in users who have functional disability as a result of pathologies other than SCI.

[1]  G. R. Muller,et al.  Brain oscillations control hand orthosis in a tetraplegic , 2000, Neuroscience Letters.

[2]  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.

[3]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  Neurophysiological predictor of SMR-based BCI performance , 2010, NeuroImage.

[4]  Christa Neuper,et al.  Sensorimotor EEG patterns during motor imagery in hemiparetic stroke patients , 2007 .

[5]  H. Flor,et al.  A spelling device for the paralysed , 1999, Nature.

[6]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Brain–computer interfaces in neurological rehabilitation , 2008, The Lancet Neurology.

[7]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  Evidence for distinct beta resonance frequencies in human EEG related to specific sensorimotor cortical areas , 2001, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[8]  M. Grosse-Wentrup,et al.  Biased feedback in brain-computer interfaces , 2010, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

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

[10]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  EEG-based neuroprosthesis control: A step towards clinical practice , 2005, Neuroscience Letters.

[11]  F. L. D. Silva,et al.  Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[12]  G. R. Muller,et al.  Clinical application of an EEG-based brain–computer interface: a case study in a patient with severe motor impairment , 2003, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[13]  B. Hjorth.  An on-line transformation of EEG scalp potentials into orthogonal source derivations. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

[15]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Patients with ALS can use sensorimotor rhythms to operate a brain-computer interface , 2005, Neurology.

[16]  Ian Daly,et al.  On the control of brain-computer interfaces by users with cerebral palsy , 2013, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[17]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  Optimal spatial filtering of single trial EEG during imagined hand movement. , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[18]  J. Mourino,et al.  Asynchronous BCI and local neural classifiers: an overview of the adaptive brain interface project , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[19]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  Enhanced detection of artifacts in EEG data using higher-order statistics and independent component analysis , 2007, NeuroImage.

[20]  Gernot R. Müller-Putz,et al.  Discrimination of Motor Imagery-Induced EEG Patterns in Patients with Complete Spinal Cord Injury , 2009, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[21]  Christa Neuper,et al.  Automatic adaptation to oscillatory EEG activity in spinal cord injury and stroke patients , 2012 .

[22]  Horst Bischof,et al.  The Self-Paced Graz Brain-Computer Interface: Methods and Applications , 2007, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[23]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  Co-adaptive calibration to improve BCI efficiency , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[24]  Gert Pfurtscheller,et al.  Motor imagery and direct brain-computer communication , 2001, Proc. IEEE.

[25]  N Birbaumer,et al.  A binary spelling interface with random errors. , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[26]  R. Waters,et al.  International Standards for Neurological and Functional Classification of Spinal Cord Injury , 1997, Spinal Cord.

[27]  Christa Neuper,et al.  Autocalibration and Recurrent Adaptation: Towards a Plug and Play Online ERD-BCI , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

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