Effects of fatigue on steady state motion visual evoked potentials: Optimised stimulus parameters for a zoom motion-based brain-computer interface

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE In flicker-based steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEP) brain-computer interface (BCI), the system performance decreases due to prolonged repeated visual stimulation. To reduce the performance decrease due to visual fatigue, the zoom motion based steady-state motion visual evoked potentials (SSMVEPs) paradigm had been proposed. In this study, the stimulation parameters of the paradigm are optimised to mitigate the decrease in detection accuracy for SSMVEP due to visual fatigue. METHODS Eight zoom motion-based SSMVEP paradigms with different stimulation parameters were compared. The graph size, luminance, colour, and shape, as well as the frequency range and interval of the stimulation and refresh rate of the screen was changed to determine the optimal paradigm with high recognition accuracy and reduced fatigue effects. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of SSMVEP was also calculated for four fatigue levels. Moreover, the power spectral density of electroencephalograph (EEG) alpha and theta bands during ongoing activity was calculated for the stimulation experiment to evaluate fatigue at the start and end of the stimulation task. RESULTS All stimulation SSMVEP paradigms exhibited high accuracies. Changes in luminance, colour, and shape did not impact the recognition accuracy, nor did a higher stimulation frequency or lower frequency interval of each stimulation block. However, the paradigm with smaller stimulus achieved the highest average target selection accuracy of 97.2%, compared to 94.9% for the standard paradigm. Furthermore, it exhibited almost zero reduction in recognition accuracy due to fatigue. From fatigue level 1 to level 4, the smaller zoom motion-based SSMVEP exhibited a lower decrease in the SNR of SSMVEP and a lower alpha/theta ratio decrease during ongoing stimulation activity compared to the standard paradigm. CONCLUSIONS For a zoom motion-based SSMVEP paradigm, changing multiple stimulation parameters can lead to the same high performance as the standard paradigm. Moreover, using a smaller stimulus can reduce the accuracy decrease caused by fatigue because the SNR decrease in the evoked SSMVEP state was negligible and the alpha/theta index decrease during ongoing activity was lower than that for the standard paradigm.

[1]  A. Cichocki,et al.  Steady-state visually evoked potentials: Focus on essential paradigms and future perspectives , 2010, Progress in Neurobiology.

[2]  R Beveridge,et al.  3D graphics, virtual reality, and motion-onset visual evoked potentials in neurogaming. , 2016, Progress in brain research.

[3]  J. Bieger,et al.  Light Stimulation Properties to Influence Brain Activity: A Brain-CoMputer Interface application , 2010 .

[4]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

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

[6]  Kai Guan,et al.  A Radial Zoom Motion-Based Paradigm for Steady State Motion Visual Evoked Potentials , 2019, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[7]  Alexander Maye,et al.  Maximizing Information Transfer in SSVEP-Based Brain–Computer Interfaces , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  Jing Wang,et al.  Steady-State Motion Visual Evoked Potentials Produced by Oscillating Newton's Rings: Implications for Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2012, PloS one.

[9]  Feng Wan,et al.  Objective evaluation of fatigue by EEG spectral analysis in steady-state visual evoked potential-based brain-computer interfaces , 2014, Biomedical engineering online.

[10]  A. T. Smith,et al.  Motion after-effects in cat striate cortex elicited by moving gratings , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  Guanghua Xu,et al.  Effects of Mental Load and Fatigue on Steady-State Evoked Potential Based Brain Computer Interface Tasks: A Comparison of Periodic Flickering and Motion-Reversal Based Visual Attention , 2016, PloS one.

[12]  Robert J. Snowden,et al.  The visual perception of motion , 2004, Current Biology.

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

[14]  Mahmut Tokmakci,et al.  The Effect of Duty Cycle and Brightness Variation of Visual Stimuli on SSVEP in Brain Computer Interface Systems , 2016 .

[15]  Yang Yu,et al.  A Dynamically Optimized SSVEP Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) Speller , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[16]  Guanghua Xu,et al.  Four Novel Motion Paradigms Based on Steady-State Motion Visual Evoked Potential , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  Shangkai Gao,et al.  A practical VEP-based brain-computer interface. , 2006, IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[18]  Tzyy-Ping Jung,et al.  Hybrid frequency and phase coding for a high-speed SSVEP-based BCI speller , 2014, 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[19]  Guanghua Xu,et al.  Highly Interactive Brain–Computer Interface Based on Flicker-Free Steady-State Motion Visual Evoked Potential , 2018, Scientific Reports.