Complete Locked-in and Locked-in Patients: Command Following Assessment and Communication with Vibro-Tactile P300 and Motor Imagery Brain-Computer Interface Tools

Many patients with locked-in syndrome (LIS) or complete locked-in syndrome (CLIS) also need brain-computer interface (BCI) platforms that do not rely on visual stimuli and are easy to use. We investigate command following and communication functions of mindBEAGLE with 9 LIS, 3 CLIS patients and three healthy controls. This tests were done with vibro-tactile stimulation with 2 or 3 stimulators (VT2 and VT3 mode) and with motor imagery (MI) paradigms. In VT2 the stimulators are fixed on the left and right wrist and the participant has the task to count the stimuli on the target hand in order to elicit a P300 response. In VT3 mode an additional stimulator is placed as a distractor on the shoulder and the participant is counting stimuli either on the right or left hand. In motor imagery mode the participant is instructed to imagine left or right hand movement. VT3 and MI also allow the participant to answer yes and no questions. Healthy controls achieved a mean assessment accuracy of 100% in VT2, 93% in VT3, and 73% in MI modes. They were able to communicate with VT3 (86.7%) and MI (83.3%) after 2 training runs. The patients achieved a mean accuracy of 76.6% in VT2, 63.1% in VT3, and 58.2% in MI modes after 1–2 training runs. 9 out of 12 LIS patients could communicate by using the vibro-tactile P300 paradigms (answered on average 8 out of 10 questions correctly) and 3 out of 12 could communicate with the motor imagery paradigm (answered correctly 4,7 out of 5 questions). 2 out of the 3 CLIS patients could use the system to communicate with VT3 (90 and 70% accuracy). The results show that paradigms based on non-visual evoked potentials and motor imagery can be effective for these users. It is also the first study that showed EEG-based BCI communication with CLIS patients and was able to bring 9 out of 12 patients to communicate with higher accuracies than reported before. More importantly this was achieved within less than 15–20 min.

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

[2]  R. Spataro,et al.  Sleep–wake disturbances in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 2011, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[3]  Rupert Ortner,et al.  How many people can control a motor imagery based BCI using common spatial patterns? , 2015, 2015 7th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER).

[4]  Adrian M. Owen,et al.  Multiple tasks and neuroimaging modalities increase the likelihood of detecting covert awareness in patients with disorders of consciousness , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[5]  Ithabi S. Gantner,et al.  A Vibrotactile P300-Based Brain–Computer Interface for Consciousness Detection and Communication , 2014, Clinical EEG and neuroscience.

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

[7]  D J McFarland,et al.  BCI in practice. , 2016, Progress in brain research.

[8]  Steven Laureys,et al.  Disorders of consciousness after acquired brain injury: the state of the science , 2014, Nature Reviews Neurology.

[9]  A. Kübler,et al.  Flashing characters with famous faces improves ERP-based brain–computer interface performance , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[10]  Benjamin Blankertz,et al.  Large-Scale Assessment of a Fully Automatic Co-Adaptive Motor Imagery-Based Brain Computer Interface , 2016, PloS one.

[11]  Bin Xia,et al.  Brain–Computer Interface–Based Communication in the Completely Locked-In State , 2017, GBCIC.

[12]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  How many people are able to operate an EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI)? , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[13]  Steven Laureys,et al.  A vibrotactile P300-based BCI for consciousness detection and communication , 2014 .

[14]  Fang Sun,et al.  Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  Sung Chan Jun,et al.  Steady-State Somatosensory Evoked Potential for Brain-Computer Interface—Present and Future , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[16]  Jonathan R. Wolpaw,et al.  Brain–Computer InterfacesPrinciples and Practice , 2012 .

[17]  E. Sellers,et al.  How many people are able to control a P300-based brain–computer interface (BCI)? , 2009, Neuroscience Letters.

[18]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Patients with ALS can use sensorimotor rhythms to operate a brain-computer interface , 2005, Neurology.

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

[20]  Lorina Naci,et al.  Somatosensory attention identifies both overt and covert awareness in disorders of consciousness , 2016, Annals of neurology.

[21]  Laura Astolfi,et al.  On ERPs detection in disorders of consciousness rehabilitation , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[22]  Quentin Noirhomme,et al.  Performance of a tactile P300 speller for healthy people and severely disabled patients , 2013, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[23]  G Pfurtscheller,et al.  Real-time EEG analysis with subject-specific spatial patterns for a brain-computer interface (BCI). , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[24]  Ganesh R. Naik,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces for Assessment and Communication in Disorders of Consciousness , 2014 .

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

[26]  R. Spataro,et al.  The eye‐tracking computer device for communication in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 2014, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

[27]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  P300 brain computer interface: current challenges and emerging trends , 2012, Front. Neuroeng..

[28]  Tomasz M. Rutkowski.  Robotic and Virtual Reality BCIs Using Spatial Tactile and Auditory Oddball Paradigms , 2016, Front. Neurorobot..

[29]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  A comparison of face speller approaches for P300 BCIs , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC).

[30]  Srivas Chennu,et al.  Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state: a cohort study , 2011, The Lancet.

[31]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Brain-computer communication: unlocking the locked in. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.