Transferring Subject-Specific Knowledge Across Stimulus Frequencies in SSVEP-Based BCIs

Learning from subject’s calibration data can significantly improve the performance of a steady-state visually evoked potential (SSVEP)-based brain–computer interface (BCI), for example, the state-of-the-art target recognition methods utilize the learned subject-specific and stimulus-specific model parameters. Unfortunately, when dealing with new stimuli or new subjects, new calibration data must be acquired, thus requiring laborious calibration sessions, which becomes a major challenge in developing high-performance BCIs for real-life applications. This study investigates the feasibility of transferring the model parameters (i.e., the spatial filters and the SSVEP templates) across two different groups of visual stimuli in SSVEP-based BCIs. According to our exploration, we can extract a common spatial filter from the spatial filters across different stimulus frequencies and a common impulse response from the SSVEP templates across different neighboring stimulus frequencies, in which the common spatial filter is considered as the transferred spatial filter and the common impulse response is utilized to reconstruct the transferred SSVEP template according to the theory that an SSVEP is a superposition of the impulse responses. Then, we develop a transfer learning canonical correlation analysis (tlCCA) incorporating the transferred model parameters. For evaluation, we compare the recognition performance of the calibration-free, the calibration-based, and the proposed tlCCA on an SSVEP data set with 60 subjects. Experiment results prove that the spatial filters share commonality across different frequencies and the impulse responses share commonality across neighboring frequencies. More importantly, the tlCCA performs significantly better than the calibration-free algorithms, comparably to the calibration-based algorithm. Note to Practitioners—This work is motivated by the long calibration time problem in using an steady-state visually evoked potential (SSVEP)-based brain–computer interface (BCI) because most state-of-the-art frequency recognition methods consider merely the situation that the calibration data and the test data are from the same subject and the same visual stimulus. This article assumes that the model parameters share the stimulus-nonspecific knowledge in a limited stimulus frequency range, and thus, the subject’s old calibration data can be reused to learn new model parameters for new visual stimuli. First, the model parameters can be decomposed into the stimulus-nonspecific knowledge (or subject-specific knowledge) and stimulus-specific knowledge. Second, the new model parameters can be generated via transferring the knowledge across stimulus frequencies. Then, a new recognition algorithm is developed using the transferred model parameters. Experiment results validate the assumptions, and moreover, the proposed scheme could be extended to other scenarios, such as when facing new subjects, or adopting new signal acquisition equipment, which would be helpful to the future development of zero-calibration SSVEP-based BCIs for real-life healthcare applications.

[1]  P. Suffczynski,et al.  On the Quantification of SSVEP Frequency Responses in Human EEG in Realistic BCI Conditions , 2013, PloS one.

[2]  Yijun Wang,et al.  Control of a 7-DOF Robotic Arm System With an SSVEP-Based BCI , 2018, Int. J. Neural Syst..

[3]  E Donchin,et al.  Brain-computer interface technology: a review of the first international meeting. , 2000, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[4]  Toshihisa Tanaka,et al.  Waveform-Based Multi-Stimulus Coding for Brain-Computer Interfaces Based on Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

[5]  Peng Yuan,et al.  Enhancing performances of SSVEP-based brain–computer interfaces via exploiting inter-subject information , 2015, Journal of neural engineering.

[6]  Yuanqing Li,et al.  A Hybrid BCI System Combining P300 and SSVEP and Its Application to Wheelchair Control , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[7]  Xiaogang Chen,et al.  A Benchmark Dataset for SSVEP-Based Brain–Computer Interfaces , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[8]  Yijun Wang,et al.  Enhancing Detection of SSVEPs for a High-Speed Brain Speller Using Task-Related Component Analysis , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  J. Gross,et al.  Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials Can Be Explained by Temporal Superposition of Transient Event-Related Responses , 2011, PloS one.

[10]  Xiaogang Chen,et al.  Filter bank canonical correlation analysis for implementing a high-speed SSVEP-based brain–computer interface , 2015, Journal of neural engineering.

[11]  Chun-Shu Wei,et al.  Facilitating Calibration in High-Speed BCI Spellers via Leveraging Cross-Device Shared Latent Responses , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[12]  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.

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

[14]  Masaki Nakanishi,et al.  Boosting template-based SSVEP decoding by cross-domain transfer learning , 2020, Journal of neural engineering.

[15]  Xingyu Wang,et al.  Discriminative Feature Extraction via Multivariate Linear Regression for SSVEP-Based BCI , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[16]  Tzyy-Ping Jung,et al.  Cross-Subject Transfer Learning Improves the Practicality of Real-World Applications of Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2019, 2019 9th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER).

[17]  Martin Spüler,et al.  Modelling the brain response to arbitrary visual stimulation patterns for a flexible high-speed Brain-Computer Interface , 2018, PloS one.

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

[19]  Chia-Wei Sun,et al.  An SSVEP-Actuated Brain Computer Interface Using Phase-Tagged Flickering Sequences: A Cursor System , 2010, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[20]  T. J. Sullivan,et al.  A user-friendly SSVEP-based brain–computer interface using a time-domain classifier , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

[21]  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.

[22]  Tzyy-Ping Jung,et al.  Session-to-Session Transfer in Detecting Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials with Individual Training Data , 2016, HCI.

[23]  Bo Zhang,et al.  A Review of EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interface Systems Design , 2018, Brain Science Advances.

[24]  Feng Wan,et al.  Learning across multi-stimulus enhances target recognition methods in SSVEP-based BCIs , 2020, Journal of neural engineering.

[25]  Toshihisa Tanaka,et al.  Reduced calibration by efficient transformation of templates for high speed hybrid coded SSVEP brain-computer interfaces , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

[26]  Qiang Yang,et al.  A Survey on Transfer Learning , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[27]  Paul Sajda,et al.  Compact convolutional neural networks for classification of asynchronous steady-state visual evoked potentials , 2018, Journal of neural engineering.

[28]  Yijun Wang,et al.  BETA: A Large Benchmark Database Toward SSVEP-BCI Application , 2019, Frontiers in Neuroscience.

[29]  Gernot R. Müller-Putz,et al.  Control of an Electrical Prosthesis With an SSVEP-Based BCI , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[30]  Peng Xu,et al.  Inter- and Intra-Subject Transfer Reduces Calibration Effort for High-Speed SSVEP-Based BCIs , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

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

[32]  Jorge Bohórquez,et al.  Generation of the 40-Hz auditory steady-state response (ASSR) explained using convolution , 2008, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[33]  Yu-Te Wang,et al.  A cell-phone-based brain–computer interface for communication in daily life , 2010, AICI.

[34]  Rami Saab,et al.  A Hybrid Brain–Computer Interface Based on the Fusion of P300 and SSVEP Scores , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

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

[36]  M. Kubát An Introduction to Machine Learning , 2017, Springer International Publishing.

[37]  Jürgen Kurths,et al.  Modification of Brain Oscillations via Rhythmic Light Stimulation Provides Evidence for Entrainment but Not for Superposition of Event-Related Responses , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[38]  Feng Liu,et al.  Common Spatial Pattern Reformulated for Regularizations in Brain–Computer Interfaces , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics.

[39]  Arne Robben,et al.  Sampled sinusoidal stimulation profile and multichannel fuzzy logic classification for monitor-based phase-coded SSVEP brain–computer interfacing , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.

[40]  Peter Desain,et al.  Broad-Band Visually Evoked Potentials: Re(con)volution in Brain-Computer Interfacing , 2015, PloS one.

[41]  Agostinho Rosa,et al.  Spatial Filtering in SSVEP-Based BCIs: Unified Framework and New Improvements , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.