Spatial decoupling of targets and flashing stimuli for visual brain-computer interfaces.

OBJECTIVE Recently, paradigms using code-modulated visual evoked potentials (c-VEPs) have proven to achieve among the highest information transfer rates for noninvasive brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). One issue with current c-VEP paradigms, and visual-evoked paradigms in general, is that they require direct foveal fixation of the flashing stimuli. These interfaces are often visually unpleasant and can be irritating and fatiguing to the user, thus adversely impacting practical performance. In this study, a novel c-VEP BCI paradigm is presented that attempts to perform spatial decoupling of the targets and flashing stimuli using two distinct concepts: spatial separation and boundary positioning. APPROACH For the paradigm, the flashing stimuli form a ring that encompasses the intended non-flashing targets, which are spatially separated from the stimuli. The user fixates on the desired target, which is classified using the changes to the EEG induced by the flashing stimuli located in the non-foveal visual field. Additionally, a subset of targets is also positioned at or near the stimulus boundaries, which decouples targets from direct association with a single stimulus. This allows a greater number of target locations for a fixed number of flashing stimuli. MAIN RESULTS Results from 11 subjects showed practical classification accuracies for the non-foveal condition, with comparable performance to the direct-foveal condition for longer observation lengths. Online results from 5 subjects confirmed the offline results with an average accuracy across subjects of 95.6% for a 4-target condition. The offline analysis also indicated that targets positioned at or near the boundaries of two stimuli could be classified with the same accuracy as traditional superimposed (non-boundary) targets. SIGNIFICANCE The implications of this research are that c-VEPs can be detected and accurately classified to achieve comparable BCI performance without requiring potentially irritating direct foveation of flashing stimuli. Furthermore, this study shows that it is possible to increase the number of targets beyond the number of stimuli without degrading performance. Given the superior information transfer rate of c-VEP paradigms, these results can lead to the development of more practical and ergonomic BCIs.

[1]  G Calhoun,et al.  Brain-computer interfaces based on the steady-state visual-evoked response. , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[2]  E. Lalor,et al.  A comparison of covert and overt attention as a control option in a steady-state visual evoked potential-based brain computer interface , 2004, The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[3]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Visual evoked spread spectrum analysis (VESPA) responses to stimuli biased towards magnocellular and parvocellular pathways , 2009, Vision Research.

[4]  Xiaorong Gao,et al.  An online multi-channel SSVEP-based brain–computer interface using a canonical correlation analysis method , 2009, Journal of neural engineering.

[5]  Barak A. Pearlmutter,et al.  Isolating endogenous visuo-spatial attentional effects using the novel visual-evoked spread spectrum analysis (VESPA) technique , 2007, The European journal of neuroscience.

[6]  G. Westheimer.  The spatial grain of the perifoveal visual field , 1982, Vision Research.

[7]  Teodiano Freire Bastos Filho,et al.  SSVEP-BCI implementation for 37–40 Hz frequency range , 2011, 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[8]  G Müller-Putz,et al.  An independent SSVEP-based brain–computer interface in locked-in syndrome , 2014, Journal of neural engineering.

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

[10]  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.

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

[12]  Wei Wu,et al.  Frequency recognition based on canonical correlation analysis for SSVEP-based BCIs , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[13]  Tao Liu,et al.  N200-speller using motion-onset visual response , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[14]  Maarten A. S. Boksem,et al.  Effects of mental fatigue on attention: an ERP study. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[15]  Po-Lei Lee,et al.  An SSVEP-Based BCI Using High Duty-Cycle Visual Flicker , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[16]  Mário Sarcinelli-Filho,et al.  Commanding a robotic wheelchair with a high-frequency steady-state visual evoked potential based brain-computer interface. , 2013, Medical engineering & physics.

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

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

[19]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Towards an independent brain–computer interface using steady state visual evoked potentials , 2008, Clinical Neurophysiology.