An Improved EEG Acquisition Protocol Facilitates Localized Neural Activation

This work proposes improvements in the electroencephalogram (EEG) recording protocols for motor imagery through the introduction of actual motor movement and/or somatosensory cues. The results obtained demonstrate the advantage of requiring the subjects to perform motor actions following the trials of imagery. By introducing motor actions in the protocol, the subjects are able to perform actual motor planning, rather than just visualizing the motor movement, thus greatly improving the ease with which the motor movements can be imagined. This study also probes the added advantage of administering somatosensory cues in the subject, as opposed to the conventional auditory/visual cues. These changes in the protocol show promise in terms of the aptness of the spatial filters obtained by the data, on the application of the well-known common spatial pattern (CSP) algorithms. The regions highlighted by the spatial filters are more localized and consistent across the subjects when the protocol is augmented with somatosensory stimuli. Hence, we suggest that this may prove to be a better EEG acquisition protocol for detecting brain activation in response to intended motor commands in (clinically) paralyzed/locked-in patients.

[1]  J. Wolpaw,et al.  Mu and Beta Rhythm Topographies During Motor Imagery and Actual Movements , 2004, Brain Topography.

[2]  Juri D. Kropotov,et al.  Functional Neuromarkers in Diseased Brain , 2016 .

[3]  F. Malouin,et al.  Motor Imagery and Aging , 2013, Journal of motor behavior.

[4]  M. Hallett,et al.  Functional properties of brain areas associated with motor execution and imagery. , 2003, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  Gerwin Schalk,et al.  Contralesional Brain–Computer Interface Control of a Powered Exoskeleton for Motor Recovery in Chronic Stroke Survivors , 2017, Stroke.

[6]  Gert Pfurtscheller,et al.  Motor imagery and direct brain-computer communication , 2001, Proc. IEEE.

[7]  Peter S. Jones,et al.  Mapping the involvement of BA 4a and 4p during Motor Imagery , 2008, NeuroImage.

[8]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  The BCI competition 2003: progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  J. Kropotov Quantitative EEG, Event-Related Potentials and Neurotherapy , 2008 .

[10]  Stephanie Brandl,et al.  Alternative CSP approaches for multimodal distributed BCI data , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC).

[11]  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.

[12]  M. Bove,et al.  Provision of somatosensory inputs during motor imagery enhances learning-induced plasticity in human motor cortex , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[13]  Andrey Eliseyev,et al.  Detection of Brain Activation in Unresponsive Patients with Acute Brain Injury. , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  On Optimal Channel Configurations for SMR-based Brain–Computer Interfaces , 2010, Brain Topography.

[15]  Youngmoo E. Kim,et al.  Comparison of Brain Activation during Motor Imagery and Motor Movement Using fNIRS , 2017, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[16]  Clemens Brunner,et al.  Mu rhythm (de)synchronization and EEG single-trial classification of different motor imagery tasks , 2006, NeuroImage.

[17]  Cuntai Guan,et al.  Regularizing Common Spatial Patterns to Improve BCI Designs: Unified Theory and New Algorithms , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[18]  Jerrin Thomas Panachakel,et al.  A Novel Deep Learning Architecture for Decoding Imagined Speech from EEG , 2020, ArXiv.

[19]  Stephanie Brandl,et al.  Bringing BCI into everyday life: Motor imagery in a pseudo realistic environment , 2015, 2015 7th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER).