Accuracy of a P300 Speller for People with Motor Impairments: A Comparison

A Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) provides a completely new output pathway that can provide an additional option for a person to express himself/her self if he/she suffers a disorder like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), brainstem stroke, brain or spinal cord injury or other diseases which impair the function of the common output pathways which are responsible for the control of muscles. For a P300 based BCI a matrix of randomly flashing characters is presented to the participant. To spell a character the person has to attend to it and to count how many times the character flashes. Although most BCIs are designed to help people with disabilities, they are mainly tested on healthy, young subjects who may achieve better results than people with impairments. In this study we compare measurements, performed on people suffering motor impairments, such as stroke or ALS, to measurements performed on healthy people. The overall accuracy of the persons with motor impairments reached 70.1% in comparison to 91% obtained for the group of healthy subjects. When looking at single subjects, one interesting example shows that under certain circumstances, when it is difficult for a patient to concentrate on one character for a longer period of time, the accuracy is higher when fewer flashes (i.e., stimuli) are presented. Furthermore, the influence of several tuning parameters is discussed as it shows that for some participants adaptations for achieving valuable spelling results are required. Finally, exclusion criteria for people who are not able to use the device are defined.

[1]  J. Rankin.  Cerebral Vascular Accidents in Patients over the Age of 60: II. Prognosis , 1957, Scottish medical journal.

[2]  J. Kurtzke.  Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis , 1983, Neurology.

[3]  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.

[4]  H. Flor,et al.  A spelling device for the paralysed , 1999, Nature.

[5]  J. Cedarbaum,et al.  The ALSFRS-R: a revised ALS functional rating scale that incorporates assessments of respiratory function , 1999, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[6]  B.Z. Allison,et al.  ERPs evoked by different matrix sizes: implications for a brain computer interface (BCI) system , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[7]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  EEG-based neuroprosthesis control: A step towards clinical practice , 2005, Neuroscience Letters.

[8]  Gert Pfurtscheller,et al.  Walking from thought , 2006, Brain Research.

[9]  E. Donchin,et al.  A P300-based brain–computer interface: Initial tests by ALS patients , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[10]  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.

[11]  Dean J Krusienski,et al.  A comparison of classification techniques for the P300 Speller , 2006, Journal of neural engineering.

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

[13]  R. Ward,et al.  EMG and EOG artifacts in brain computer interface systems: A survey , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[14]  Ivan Volosyak,et al.  Multiple Channel Detection of Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials for Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[15]  Gernot R. Müller-Putz,et al.  Self-Paced (Asynchronous) BCI Control of a Wheelchair in Virtual Environments: A Case Study with a Tetraplegic , 2007, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[16]  Cuntai Guan,et al.  Asynchronous P300-Based Brain--Computer Interfaces: A Computational Approach With Statistical Models , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  E. W. Sellers,et al.  Toward enhanced P300 speller performance , 2008, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[18]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  A P300-based brain–computer interface for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 2008, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[20]  Brendan Z. Allison,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Gentle Introduction , 2009 .

[21]  Y. Nakajima,et al.  Visual stimuli for the P300 brain–computer interface: A comparison of white/gray and green/blue flicker matrices , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[22]  N. Birbaumer,et al.  An auditory oddball brain–computer interface for binary choices , 2010, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[23]  N. Birbaumer,et al.  The Influence of Psychological State and Motivation on Brain–Computer Interface Performance in Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis – a Longitudinal Study , 2010, Front. Neuropharma..

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

[25]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  An SSVEP BCI to Control a Hand Orthosis for Persons With Tetraplegia , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.