The Role of the Interplay between Stimulus Type and Timing in Explaining BCI-Illiteracy for Visual P300-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces

Visual P300-based Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) spellers enable communication or interaction with the environment by flashing elements in a matrix and exploiting consequent changes in end-user's brain activity. Despite research efforts, performance variability and BCI-illiteracy still are critical issues for real world applications. Moreover, there is a quite unaddressed kind of BCI-illiteracy, which becomes apparent when the same end-user operates BCI-spellers intended for different applications: our aim is to understand why some well performers can become BCI-illiterate depending on speller type. We manipulated stimulus type (factor STIM: either characters or icons), color (factor COLOR: white, green) and timing (factor SPEED: fast, slow). Each BCI session consisted of training (without feedback) and performance phase (with feedback), both in copy-spelling. For fast flashing spellers, we observed a performance worsening for white icon-speller. Our findings are consistent with existing results reported on end-users using identical white×fast spellers, indicating independence of worsening trend from users' group. The use of slow stimulation timing shed a new light on the perceptual and cognitive phenomena related to the use of a BCI-speller during both the training and the performance phase. We found a significant STIM main effect for the N1 component on Pz and PO7 during the training phase and on PO8 during the performance phase, whereas in both phases neither the STIM×COLOR interaction nor the COLOR main effect was statistically significant. After collapsing data for factor COLOR, it emerged a statistically significant modulation of N1 amplitude depending to the phase of BCI session: N1 was more negative for icons than for characters both on Pz and PO7 (training), whereas the opposite modulation was observed for PO8 (performance). Results indicate that both feedback and expertise with respect to the stimulus type can modulate the N1 component and that icons require more perceptual analysis. Therefore, fast flashing is likely to be more detrimental for end-users' performance in case of icon-spellers. In conclusion, the interplay between stimulus type and timing seems relevant for a satisfactory and efficient end-user's BCI-experience.

[1]  L. Gauthier,et al.  The Bells Test: A quantitative and qualitative test for visual neglect. , 1989 .

[2]  M. Tarr,et al.  Learning to see faces and objects , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Brendan Z Allison,et al.  Effects of SOA and flash pattern manipulations on ERPs, performance, and preference: implications for a BCI system. , 2006, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[4]  A. Burgess,et al.  Paradox lost? Exploring the role of alpha oscillations during externally vs. internally directed attention and the implications for idling and inhibition hypotheses. , 2003, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[5]  J. Huggins,et al.  What would brain-computer interface users want? Opinions and priorities of potential users with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 2011, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis : official publication of the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Motor Neuron Diseases.

[6]  S. Folstein,et al.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. , 1975, Journal of psychiatric research.

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

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

[9]  Makoto Wada,et al.  Effect of the Green/Blue Flicker Matrix for P300-Based Brain–Computer Interface: An EEG–fMRI Study , 2012, Front. Neur..

[10]  Kouji Takano,et al.  A region-based two-step P300-based brain–computer interface for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 2014, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[11]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  Berlin Brain-Computer Interface - The HCI communication channel for discovery , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[12]  S M M Martens,et al.  Overlap and refractory effects in a brain–computer interface speller based on the visual P300 event-related potential , 2009, Journal of neural engineering.

[13]  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.

[14]  I. A. Basyul,et al.  N1 wave in the P300 BCI is not sensitive to the physical characteristics of stimuli. , 2009, Journal of integrative neuroscience.

[15]  J.D. Bayliss,et al.  Use of the evoked potential P3 component for control in a virtual apartment , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[16]  O. Bertrand,et al.  Oscillatory gamma-band (30-70 Hz) activity induced by a visual search task in humans. , 1997, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[17]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Pictures and names: Making the connection , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  The Training and Transfer of Real-World Perceptual Expertise , 2005, Psychological science.

[19]  J. Pernier,et al.  Oscillatory γ-Band (30–70 Hz) Activity Induced by a Visual Search Task in Humans , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[20]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Brain–computer interfaces in neurological rehabilitation , 2008, The Lancet Neurology.

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

[22]  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.

[23]  T. Lumley,et al.  gplots: Various R Programming Tools for Plotting Data , 2015 .

[24]  Valerio Gower,et al.  The DAT Project: A Smart Home Environment for People with Disabilities , 2006, ICCHP.

[25]  Steven L. Johnson,et al.  A P300-Based Brain–Computer Interface: Effects of Interface Type and Screen Size , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[26]  Alice Mado Proverbio,et al.  The cognitive electrophysiology of mind and brain , 2003 .

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

[28]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  A Reevaluation of the Electrophysiological Correlates of Expert Object Processing , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[29]  W. Klimesch,et al.  Visual discrimination performance is related to decreased alpha amplitude but increased phase locking , 2005, Neuroscience Letters.

[30]  G. Comi,et al.  IFCN standards for digital recording of clinical EEG. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. , 1998, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[31]  Joseph Ciorciari,et al.  Steady-State Visually Evoked Potential topography associated with a visual vigilance task , 2005, Brain Topography.

[32]  Ralf Engbert,et al.  Your mind wanders weakly, your mind wanders deeply: Objective measures reveal mindless reading at different levels , 2012, Cognition.

[33]  Li Fei-Fei,et al.  Visual categorization is automatic and obligatory: evidence from Stroop-like paradigm. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[34]  Nader Pouratian,et al.  A method for optimizing EEG electrode number and configuration for signal acquisition in P300 speller systems , 2015, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[36]  Dirk Heylen,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfacing and Games , 2010, Brain-Computer Interfaces.

[37]  Eric W. Sellers,et al.  New horizons in brain-computer interface research , 2013, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[38]  P. Ciampolini,et al.  A Flexible Home Automation System Applied to Elderly Care , 2007, 2007 Digest of Technical Papers International Conference on Consumer Electronics.

[39]  L. R. Quitadamo,et al.  Which Physiological Components are More Suitable for Visual ERP Based Brain–Computer Interface? A Preliminary MEG/EEG Study , 2010, Brain Topography.

[40]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Selective attention to stimulus location modulates the steady-state visual evoked potential. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[42]  J. Tanaka The entry point of face recognition: evidence for face expertise. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[43]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[44]  A. Cichocki,et al.  A survey of the dummy face and human face stimuli used in BCI paradigm , 2015, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

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

[46]  George S. Cree,et al.  Perceptual and Conceptual Interactions in Object Recognition and Expertise , 2009 .

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

[48]  M Salvaris,et al.  Visual modifications on the P300 speller BCI paradigm , 2009, Journal of neural engineering.

[49]  Nico Bunzeck,et al.  Reward modulates the neural dynamics of early visual category processing , 2012, NeuroImage.

[50]  Mark S. Gilzenrat,et al.  Pupil diameter tracks changes in control state predicted by the adaptive gain theory of locus coeruleus function , 2010, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[51]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Visual object understanding , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[52]  Ferdinando Grossi,et al.  Light on! Real world evaluation of a P300-based brain–computer interface (BCI) for environment control in a smart home , 2012, Ergonomics.

[53]  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.

[54]  G. Comi,et al.  IFCN standards for digital recording of clinical EEG. International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. , 1998, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[55]  M. Kiefer,et al.  Cognitive Neuroscience: Tracking the time course of object categorization using event-related potentials , 1999 .

[56]  J. Huggins,et al.  What would brain-computer interface users want: opinions and priorities of potential users with spinal cord injury. , 2015, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[57]  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.

[58]  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.

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

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

[61]  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.

[62]  Ian Daly,et al.  On the control of brain-computer interfaces by users with cerebral palsy , 2013, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[63]  Kensuke Sekihara,et al.  Coherent Activity in Bilateral Parieto-Occipital Cortices during P300-BCI Operation , 2014, Front. Neurol..

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

[65]  J. Tanaka,et al.  A Neural Basis for Expert Object Recognition , 2001, Psychological science.

[66]  A. F. Adams,et al.  The Survey , 2021, Dyslexia in Higher Education.

[67]  Michiel A. J. Kompier,et al.  The window of my eyes: Task disengagement and mental fatigue covary with pupil dynamics , 2015, Biological Psychology.

[68]  Gang Peng,et al.  A Chinese Text Input Brain–Computer Interface Based on the P300 Speller , 2012, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[69]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[70]  R. Bakeman Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs , 2005, Behavior research methods.

[71]  José del R. Millán,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2020, Handbook of Clinical Neurology.

[72]  Mel Slater,et al.  Virtual Smart Home Controlled by Thoughts , 2009, 2009 18th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructures for Collaborative Enterprises.

[73]  R. B. Silberstein,et al.  Steady-State Visually Evoked Potential Topography during Processing of Emotional Valence in Healthy Subjects , 2002, NeuroImage.

[74]  T. Ergenoğlu,et al.  Alpha rhythm of the EEG modulates visual detection performance in humans. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[75]  M. Castelo‐Branco,et al.  Comparison of a row-column speller vs. a novel lateral single-character speller: Assessment of BCI for severe motor disabled patients , 2012, Clinical Neurophysiology.