Classification effects of real and imaginary movement selective attention tasks on a P300-based brain–computer interface

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) rely on various electroencephalography methodologies that allow the user to convey their desired control to the machine. Common approaches include the use of event-related potentials (ERPs) such as the P300 and modulation of the beta and mu rhythms. All of these methods have their benefits and drawbacks. In this paper, three different selective attention tasks were tested in conjunction with a P300-based protocol (i.e. the standard counting of target stimuli as well as the conduction of real and imaginary movements in sync with the target stimuli). The three tasks were performed by a total of 10 participants, with the majority (7 out of 10) of the participants having never before participated in imaginary movement BCI experiments. Channels and methods used were optimized for the P300 ERP and no sensory-motor rhythms were explicitly used. The classifier used was a simple Fisher's linear discriminant. Results were encouraging, showing that on average the imaginary movement achieved a P300 versus No-P300 classification accuracy of 84.53%. In comparison, mental counting, the standard selective attention task used in previous studies, achieved 78.9% and real movement 90.3%. Furthermore, multiple trial classification results were recorded and compared, with real movement reaching 99.5% accuracy after four trials (12.8 s), imaginary movement reaching 99.5% accuracy after five trials (16 s) and counting reaching 98.2% accuracy after ten trials (32 s).

[1]  Elena L. Glassman,et al.  A wavelet-like filter based on neuron action potentials for analysis of human scalp electroencephalographs , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[2]  B. Burle,et al.  Electroencephalographic nogo potentials in a no-movement context: the case of motor imagery in humans , 2004, Neuroscience Letters.

[3]  David G. Stork,et al.  Pattern Classification , 1973 .

[4]  N. Kanwisher Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation , 1987, Cognition.

[5]  Isabelle Guyon,et al.  An Introduction to Variable and Feature Selection , 2003, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[6]  E Gordon,et al.  Is the target-to-target interval a critical determinant of P3 amplitude? , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[7]  P Sandroni,et al.  Readiness to respond in a target detection task: pre- and post-stimulus event-related potentials in normal subjects. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[8]  D L Woods,et al.  The recovery functions of auditory event-related potentials during split-second discriminations. , 1986, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[9]  J. Polich Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[12]  J. Polich,et al.  P300, probability, and interstimulus interval. , 1990, Psychophysiology.

[13]  J. Polich Clinical application of the P300 event-related brain potential. , 2004, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[14]  Christa Neuper,et al.  A scanning protocol for a sensorimotor rhythm-based brain–computer interface , 2009, Biological Psychology.

[15]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  The BCI competition III: validating alternative approaches to actual BCI problems , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[16]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  The BCI competition 2003: progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

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

[18]  D.J. McFarland,et al.  The wadsworth BCI research and development program: at home with BCI , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[19]  R. Barry,et al.  Movement-related potentials in the Go/NoGo task: The P3 reflects both cognitive and motor inhibition , 2008, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[20]  J. Polich,et al.  P300 from auditory and somatosensory stimuli: probability and inter-stimulus interval. , 1991, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[21]  J. Ford,et al.  ERPs to response production and inhibition. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[22]  Luca Citi,et al.  Possible sources of perceptual errors in P300-based speller paradigm , 2004 .

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

[24]  K L Shapiro,et al.  Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? . , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  M Congedo,et al.  A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces , 2007, Journal of neural engineering.

[26]  R. McCarley,et al.  Button-pressing affects P300 amplitude and scalp topography , 2001, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[27]  C. Gonsalvez,et al.  Target-to-target interval, intensity, and P300 from an auditory single-stimulus task. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[28]  Rabab K Ward,et al.  A survey of signal processing algorithms in brain–computer interfaces based on electrical brain signals , 2007, Journal of neural engineering.

[29]  A. A. Wijers,et al.  Inhibition, response mode, and stimulus probability: a comparative event-related potential study , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[30]  E Donchin,et al.  Sequential expectancies and decision making in a changing environment: an electrophysiological approach. , 1982, Psychophysiology.

[31]  E. Donchin,et al.  On quantifying surprise: the variation of event-related potentials with subjective probability. , 1977, Psychophysiology.

[32]  C. Cinel,et al.  P300-Based BCI Mouse With Genetically-Optimized Analogue Control , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[33]  John Polich,et al.  Response mode and P300 from auditory stimuli , 1987, Biological Psychology.

[34]  R. McCarley,et al.  The NoGo P300 ‘anteriorization’ effect and response inhibition , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[35]  H. Shibasaki,et al.  Human auditory and somatosensory event-related potentials: effects of response condition and age. , 1987, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[36]  E. Donchin,et al.  P300 and tracking difficulty: evidence for multiple resources in dual-task performance. , 1980, Psychophysiology.

[37]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[38]  Koji Inui,et al.  Effects of a go/nogo task on event-related potentials following somatosensory stimulation , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.