The Role of Transient Target Stimuli in a Steady-State Somatosensory Evoked Potential-Based Brain–Computer Interface Setup

In earlier literature, so-called twitches were used to support a user in a steady-state somatosensory evoked potential (SSSEP) based brain–computer interface (BCI) to focus attention on the requested targets. Within this work, we investigate the impact of these transient target stimuli on SSSEPs in a real-life BCI setup. A hybrid BCI was designed which combines SSSEPs and P300 potentials evoked by twitches randomly embedded into the streams of tactile stimuli. The EEG of fourteen healthy subjects was recorded, while their left and right index fingers were simultaneously stimulated using frequencies selected in a screening procedure. The subjects were randomly instructed by a cue on a screen to focus attention on one or none of the fingers. Feature for SSSEPs and P300 potentials were extracted and classified using separately trained multi-class shrinkage LDA classifiers. Three-class classification accuracies significantly better than random could be reached by nine subjects using SSSEP features and by 12 subjects using P300 features respectively. The average classification accuracies were 48.6% using SSSEP and 50.7% using P300 features. By means of a Monte Carlo permutation test it could be shown that twitches have an attenuation effect on the SSSEP. Significant SSSEP blocking effects time-locked to twitch positions were found in seven subjects. Our findings suggest that the attempt to combine different types of stimulation signals like repetitive signals and twitches has a mutual influence on each other, which may be the main reason for the rather moderate BCI performance. This influence is originated at the level of stimulus generation but becomes apparent as physiological effect in the SSSEP. When designing a hybrid BCI based on SSSEPs and P300 potentials, one has to find an optimal tradeoff depending on the overall design goals or individual subjects' performance. Our results give therefore some new insights that may be useful for the successful design of hybrid BCIs.

[1]  Febo Cincotti,et al.  Tools for Brain-Computer Interaction: A General Concept for a Hybrid BCI , 2011, Front. Neuroinform..

[2]  Vera Kaiser,et al.  Stability and distribution of steady-state somatosensory evoked potentials elicited by vibro-tactile stimulation , 2012, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[3]  Matthias M. Müller,et al.  Selective spatial attention to left or right hand flutter sensation modulates the steady-state somatosensory evoked potential. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[4]  Anne-Marie Brouwer,et al.  A tactile P 300 brain-computer interface , 2010 .

[5]  Matthias M. Müller,et al.  Sustained spatial attention to vibration is mediated in primary somatosensory cortex , 2007, NeuroImage.

[6]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  A fully automated correction method of EOG artifacts in EEG recordings , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[7]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  The Hybrid BCI , 2010, Frontiers in Neuroscience.

[8]  D. Gabor,et al.  Theory of communication. Part 1: The analysis of information , 1946 .

[9]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

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

[11]  Shozo Tobimatsu,et al.  Steady-state vibration somatosensory evoked potentials: physiological characteristics and tuning function , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[12]  Matthias M. Müller,et al.  Shift of attention to the body location of distracters is mediated by perceptual load in sustained somatosensory attention , 2009, Biological Psychology.

[13]  Matthias M. Mueller,et al.  Test–retest reliability of concurrently recorded steady-state and somatosensory evoked potentials in somatosensory sustained spatial attention , 2014, Biological Psychology.

[14]  Long Chen,et al.  A visual parallel-BCI speller based on the time–frequency coding strategy , 2014, Journal of neural engineering.

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

[16]  Febo Cincotti,et al.  Towards Noninvasive Hybrid Brain–Computer Interfaces: Framework, Practice, Clinical Application, and Beyond , 2015, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[17]  Jan B. F. van Erp,et al.  A Tactile P300 Brain-Computer Interface , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

[18]  Christa Neuper,et al.  Somatosensory evoked potentials elicited by stimulating two fingers from one hand — Usable for BCI? , 2011, 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[19]  Peter Desain,et al.  Introducing the tactile speller: an ERP-based brain–computer interface for communication , 2012, Journal of neural engineering.

[20]  Scott Makeig,et al.  BCILAB: a platform for brain–computer interface development , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.

[21]  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.

[22]  D. Regan Human brain electrophysiology: Evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine , 1989 .

[23]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  Steady-state somatosensory evoked potentials: suitable brain signals for brain-computer interfaces? , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[24]  Dong Ming,et al.  A hybrid BCI speller paradigm combining P300 potential and the SSVEP blocking feature , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.

[25]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  „Resonance-like“ Frequencies of Sensorimotor Areas Evoked by Repetitive Tactile Stimulation - Resonanzeffekte in sensomotorischen Arealen, evoziert durch rhythmische taktile Stimulation , 2001, Biomedizinische Technik. Biomedical engineering.

[26]  N. Birbaumer,et al.  Predictability of Brain-Computer Communication , 2004 .

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

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

[29]  K. Strimmer,et al.  Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology A Shrinkage Approach to Large-Scale Covariance Matrix Estimation and Implications for Functional Genomics , 2011 .

[30]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[31]  Moors Pieter,et al.  Test-retest reliability. , 2014 .

[32]  Shozo Tobimatsu,et al.  Differential temporal coding of the vibratory sense in the hand and foot in man , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[33]  Gernot R. Müller-Putz,et al.  A Tactile Stimulation Device for EEG Measurements in Clinical Use , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems.

[34]  Gernot R. Müller-Putz,et al.  The auditory P300-based single-switch brain-computer interface: Paradigm transition from healthy subjects to minimally conscious patients , 2013, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[35]  Jason Farquhar,et al.  A multi-signature brain–computer interface: use of transient and steady-state responses , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.