Hardware/Software Components and Applications of BCIs

Human-Computer interfaces can use different signals from the body in order to control external devices. Beside muscle activity (EMG-Electromyogram), eye movements (EOGElectrooculogram) and respiration also brain activity (EEG-Electroencephalogram) can be used as input signal. EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI) systems are realized either with (i) slow cortical potentials, (ii) the P300 response, (iii) steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEP) or (iv) motor imagery. Potential shift of the scalp EEG over 0.5 – 10 s are called slow cortical potentials (SCPs). Reduced cortical activation goes ahead with positive SCPs, while negative SCPs are associated with movement and other functions involving cortical activation (Birbaumer, 2000). People are able to learn how to control these potentials, hence it is possible to use them for BCIs as Birbaumer and his colleagues did (Birbaumer, 2000, Elbert, 1980). The main disadvantage of this method is the extensive training time to learn how to control the SCPs. Users need to train in several 1-2 h sessions/week over weeks or months. The P300 wave was first discovered by Sutton (Sutton, 1965). It elicits when an unlikely event occurs randomly between events with high probability. In the EEG signal the P300 appears as a positive wave about 300 ms after stimulus onset. Its main usage in BCIs is for spelling devices, but one can also use it for control tasks (for example games (Finkea, 2009) or navigation (e.g. to move a computer-mouse (Citi, 2008)). When using P300 as a spelling device, a matrix of characters is shown to the subject. Now the rows and columns (or in some paradigms the single characters) of the matrix are flashing in random order, while the person concentrates only on the character he/she wants to spell. For better concentration, it is recommended to count how many times the character flashes. Every time the desired character flashes, a P300 wave occurs. As the detection of one single event would be imprecise, more than one trial (flashing of each character) has to be carried out to achieve a proper accuracy. Krusienski et al. (Krusienski, 2006) evaluated different classification techniques for the P300 speller, wherein the stepwise linear discriminant analysis (SWLDA) and the Fisher’s linear discriminant analysis provided the best overall performance and implementation characteristics. A recent study (Guger 2009), performed on 100 subjects, revealed an average accuracy level of 91.1%, with a spelling time of 28.8 s for one single character. Each character was selected out of a matrix of 36 characters.

[1]  G Pfurtscheller,et al.  Current trends in Graz Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) research. , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[2]  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.

[3]  Reinhold Scherer,et al.  Steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based communication: impact of harmonic frequency components , 2005, Journal of neural engineering.

[4]  H. Flor,et al.  The thought translation device (TTD) for completely paralyzed patients. , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

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

[6]  C. Cinel,et al.  P300-Based BCI Mouse With Genetically-Optimized Analogue Control , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  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.

[10]  B. Rockstroh,et al.  Biofeedback of slow cortical potentials. I. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  Gerwin Schalk,et al.  A brain–computer interface using electrocorticographic signals in humans , 2004, Journal of neural engineering.

[12]  A. Cichocki,et al.  Optimization of SSVEP brain responses with application to eight-command Brain–Computer Interface , 2010, Neuroscience Letters.

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

[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]  A. Engel,et al.  An independent brain–computer interface using covert non-spatial visual selective attention , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

[16]  Wei Wu,et al.  Frequency Recognition Based on Canonical Correlation Analysis for SSVEP-Based BCIs , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  Bin He,et al.  Motor imagery task classification for brain computer interface applications using spatiotemporal principle component analysis , 2004, Neurological research.

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

[19]  Helge J. Ritter,et al.  2009 Special Issue: The MindGame: A P300-based brain-computer interface game , 2009 .

[20]  Xiaorong Gao,et al.  A BCI-based environmental controller for the motion-disabled. , 2003, IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

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

[22]  M. Thulasidas,et al.  Robust classification of EEG signal for brain-computer interface , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[23]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  EEG-based discrimination between imagination of right and left hand movement. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

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

[25]  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.

[26]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  Rapid prototyping of an EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI) , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

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

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