Optimal pseudorandom sequence selection for online c-VEP based BCI control applications

Background In a c-VEP BCI setting, test subjects can have highly varying performances when different pseudorandom sequences are applied as stimulus, and ideally, multiple codes should be supported. On the other hand, repeating the experiment with many different pseudorandom sequences is a laborious process. Aims This study aimed to suggest an efficient method for choosing the optimal stimulus sequence based on a fast test and simple measures to increase the performance and minimize the time consumption for research trials. Methods A total of 21 healthy subjects were included in an online wheelchair control task and completed the same task using stimuli based on the m-code, the gold-code, and the Barker-code. Correct/incorrect identification and time consumption were obtained for each identification. Subject-specific templates were characterized and used in a forward-step first-order model to predict the chance of completion and accuracy score. Results No specific pseudorandom sequence showed superior accuracy on the group basis. When isolating the individual performances with the highest accuracy, time consumption per identification was not significantly increased. The Accuracy Score aids in predicting what pseudorandom sequence will lead to the best performance using only the templates. The Accuracy Score was higher when the template resembled a delta function the most and when repeated templates were consistent. For completion prediction, only the shape of the template was a significant predictor. Conclusions The simple and fast method presented in this study as the Accuracy Score, allows c-VEP based BCI systems to support multiple pseudorandom sequences without increase in trial length. This allows for more personalized BCI systems with better performance to be tested without increased costs.

[1]  Yijun Wang,et al.  A high-speed BCI based on code modulation VEP , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[2]  Yijun Wang,et al.  VEP-based brain-computer interfaces: time, frequency, and code modulations [Research Frontier] , 2009, IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine.

[3]  Dean J Krusienski,et al.  Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. , 2012, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[4]  Yoshikazu Washizawa,et al.  Reliability-based automatic repeat request for short code modulation visual evoked potentials in brain computer interfaces , 2015, 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[5]  Bin He,et al.  Noninvasive Electroencephalogram Based Control of a Robotic Arm for Reach and Grasp Tasks , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[6]  Solomon W. Golomb,et al.  Shift Register Sequences , 1981 .

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

[8]  Helge B. D. Sørensen,et al.  A brain computer interface for robust wheelchair control application based on pseudorandom code modulated Visual Evoked Potential , 2015, 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[9]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice , 2012 .

[10]  T. Kasami.  WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION FORMULA FOR SOME CLASS OF CYCLIC CODES , 1966 .

[11]  K. Lafleur,et al.  Quadcopter control in three-dimensional space using a noninvasive motor imagery-based brain–computer interface , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.

[12]  Theodore W. Berger,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces: An international assessment of research and development trends , 2008 .

[13]  Kenneth Morton,et al.  Projected Accuracy Metric for the P300 Speller , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[14]  Martin H. Ackroyd,et al.  Synthesis of Efficient Huffman Sequences , 1972, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems.

[15]  Peter Desain,et al.  Broad-Band Visually Evoked Potentials: Re(con)volution in Brain-Computer Interfacing , 2015, PloS one.

[16]  Aboul Ella Hassanien,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces - Current Trends and Applications , 2014, rain-Computer Interfaces.

[17]  Rajesh P. N. Rao.  Brain-Computer Interfacing: An Introduction , 2010 .

[18]  Christoph Guger,et al.  A BCI using VEP for continuous control of a mobile robot , 2013, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[19]  Ronald M. Aarts,et al.  A Survey of Stimulation Methods Used in SSVEP-Based BCIs , 2010, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[20]  Wolfgang Rosenstiel,et al.  Online Adaptation of a c-VEP Brain-Computer Interface(BCI) Based on Error-Related Potentials and Unsupervised Learning , 2012, PloS one.

[21]  Gunnar Blohm,et al.  On the neural implementation of the speed-accuracy trade-off , 2014, Front. Neurosci..

[22]  S. W. GOLOMB,et al.  Generalized Barker sequences , 1965, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[23]  Sadasivan Puthusserypady,et al.  A comparative study of pseudorandom sequences used in a c-VEP based BCI for online wheelchair control , 2016, 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[24]  Reza Fazel-Rezai,et al.  A Review of Hybrid Brain-Computer Interface Systems , 2013, Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[25]  G. Cardarilli,et al.  Performances Evaluation and Optimization of Brain Computer Interface Systems in a Copy Spelling Task , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[26]  Siwei Feng,et al.  Stimulus Specificity of Brain-Computer Interfaces Based on Code Modulation Visual Evoked Potentials , 2016, PloS one.

[27]  C. Neuper,et al.  Combining Brain–Computer Interfaces and Assistive Technologies: State-of-the-Art and Challenges , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

[28]  G Pfurtscheller,et al.  EEG-based communication: improved accuracy by response verification. , 1998, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[29]  M. Matteucci,et al.  The Utility Metric: A Novel Method to Assess the Overall Performance of Discrete Brain–Computer Interfaces , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[30]  M.B. Pursley,et al.  Crosscorrelation properties of pseudorandom and related sequences , 1980, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[31]  D. Mattia,et al.  Evaluation of the performances of different P300 based brain–computer interfaces by means of the efficiency metric , 2012, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[32]  S. Coyle,et al.  Brain–computer interfaces: a review , 2003 .