Beyond maximum speed—a novel two-stimulus paradigm for brain–computer interfaces based on event-related potentials (P300-BCI)

OBJECTIVE The speed of brain-computer interfaces (BCI), based on event-related potentials (ERP), is inherently limited by the commonly used one-stimulus paradigm. In this paper, we introduce a novel paradigm that can increase the spelling speed by a factor of 2, thereby extending the one-stimulus paradigm to a two-stimulus paradigm. Two different stimuli (a face and a symbol) are presented at the same time, superimposed on different characters and ERPs are classified using a multi-class classifier. Here, we present the proof-of-principle that is achieved with healthy participants. APPROACH Eight participants were confronted with the novel two-stimulus paradigm and, for comparison, with two one-stimulus paradigms that used either one of the stimuli. Classification accuracies (percentage of correctly predicted letters) and elicited ERPs from the three paradigms were compared in a comprehensive offline analysis. MAIN RESULTS The accuracies slightly decreased with the novel system compared to the established one-stimulus face paradigm. However, the use of two stimuli allowed for spelling at twice the maximum speed of the one-stimulus paradigms, and participants still achieved an average accuracy of 81.25%. This study introduced an alternative way of increasing the spelling speed in ERP-BCIs and illustrated that ERP-BCIs may not yet have reached their speed limit. Future research is needed in order to improve the reliability of the novel approach, as some participants displayed reduced accuracies. Furthermore, a comparison to the most recent BCI systems with individually adjusted, rapid stimulus timing is needed to draw conclusions about the practical relevance of the proposed paradigm. SIGNIFICANCE We introduced a novel two-stimulus paradigm that might be of high value for users who have reached the speed limit with the current one-stimulus ERP-BCI systems.

[1]  L. Cohen,et al.  Brain–computer interfaces: communication and restoration of movement in paralysis , 2007, The Journal of physiology.

[2]  Cornelia Herbert,et al.  Brain Painting: Usability testing according to the user-centered design in end users with severe motor paralysis , 2013, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[3]  A. Cichocki,et al.  The Changing Face of P300 BCIs: A Comparison of Stimulus Changes in a P300 BCI Involving Faces, Emotion, and Movement , 2012, PloS one.

[4]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Impact of target-to-target interval on classification performance in the P300 speller , 2007 .

[5]  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.

[6]  Febo Cincotti,et al.  Out of the frying pan into the fire--the P300-based BCI faces real-world challenges. , 2011, Progress in brain research.

[7]  Xingyu Wang,et al.  An adaptive P300-based control system , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

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

[9]  Xingyu Wang,et al.  Optimized stimulus presentation patterns for an event-related potential EEG-based brain–computer interface , 2011, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[10]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[11]  A. Kübler,et al.  Brain Painting: First Evaluation of a New Brain–Computer Interface Application with ALS-Patients and Healthy Volunteers , 2010, Front. Neurosci..

[12]  Xiaorong Gao,et al.  A brain–computer interface using motion-onset visual evoked potential , 2008, Journal of neural engineering.

[13]  Tobias Kaufmann,et al.  Long-term independent brain-computer interface home use improves quality of life of a patient in the locked-in state: a case study. , 2015, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

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

[15]  Stefan Haufe,et al.  Single-trial analysis and classification of ERP components — A tutorial , 2011, NeuroImage.

[16]  A. Kübler,et al.  Toward brain-computer interface based wheelchair control utilizing tactually-evoked event-related potentials , 2014, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[17]  B. Blankertz,et al.  (C)overt attention and visual speller design in an ERP-based brain-computer interface , 2010, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[18]  Michael Tangermann,et al.  How stimulation speed affects Event-Related Potentials and BCI performance , 2012, 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

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

[20]  Roderick Murray-Smith,et al.  Optimized stimulation events for a visual ERP BCI , 2011 .

[21]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  A P300 event-related potential brain–computer interface (BCI): The effects of matrix size and inter stimulus interval on performance , 2006, Biological Psychology.

[22]  William J Tyler,et al.  A quantitative overview of biophysical forces impinging on neural function , 2013, Physical biology.

[23]  Dennis J. McFarland,et al.  The P300-based brain–computer interface (BCI): Effects of stimulus rate , 2011, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[24]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Does the ‘P300’ speller depend on eye gaze? , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

[25]  Jason Farquhar,et al.  Interactions Between Pre-Processing and Classification Methods for Event-Related-Potential Classification , 2012, Neuroinformatics.

[26]  Tobias Kaufmann,et al.  User Centred Design in BCI Development , 2012 .

[27]  P. Lang.  International affective picture system (IAPS) : affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual , 2005 .

[28]  Benjamin Blankertz,et al.  Two-dimensional auditory p300 speller with predictive text system , 2010, 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology.

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

[30]  Brice Rebsamen,et al.  A brain controlled wheelchair to navigate in familiar environments. , 2010, IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[31]  Stefan Haufe,et al.  Optimizing event-related potential based brain-computer interfaces: a systematic evaluation of dynamic stopping methods. , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.

[32]  A. Lenhardt,et al.  An Adaptive P300-Based Online Brain–Computer Interface , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[33]  J. W. Minett,et al.  Optimizing the P300-based brain–computer interface: current status, limitations and future directions , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[34]  Xingyu Wang,et al.  A combined brain–computer interface based on P300 potentials and motion-onset visual evoked potentials , 2012, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[35]  Shangkai Gao,et al.  An online brain–computer interface using non-flashing visual evoked potentials , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

[36]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Handbook of Psychophysiology: Event-Related Brain Potentials: Methods, Theory, and Applications , 2007 .

[37]  Michael Tangermann,et al.  Listen, You are Writing! Speeding up Online Spelling with a Dynamic Auditory BCI , 2011, Front. Neurosci..

[38]  Yael Arbel,et al.  BCIs that use P300 Event Related Potentials , 2012 .

[39]  A. Kübler,et al.  Face stimuli effectively prevent brain–computer interface inefficiency in patients with neurodegenerative disease , 2013, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[41]  Jason Farquhar,et al.  Effects of Stimulus Type and of Error-Correcting Code Design on BCI Speller Performance , 2008, NIPS.

[42]  Iñaki Iturrate,et al.  A Noninvasive Brain-Actuated Wheelchair Based on a P300 Neurophysiological Protocol and Automated Navigation , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[43]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  A novel P300-based brain–computer interface stimulus presentation paradigm: Moving beyond rows and columns , 2010, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[44]  Michael Bensch,et al.  Design and Implementation of a P300-Based Brain-Computer Interface for Controlling an Internet Browser , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[45]  Tobias Kaufmann,et al.  Comparison of tactile, auditory, and visual modality for brain-computer interface use: a case study with a patient in the locked-in state , 2013, Front. Neurosci..

[46]  E. John,et al.  Evoked-Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty , 1965, Science.

[47]  F. Piccione,et al.  P300-based brain computer interface: Reliability and performance in healthy and paralysed participants , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[48]  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.

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

[50]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Control of a humanoid robot by a noninvasive brain–computer interface in humans , 2008, Journal of neural engineering.

[51]  Donatella Mattia,et al.  A Brain-Computer Interface as Input Channel for a Standard Assistive Technology Software , 2011, Clinical EEG and neuroscience.

[52]  A. Cichocki,et al.  A novel BCI based on ERP components sensitive to configural processing of human faces , 2012, Journal of neural engineering.