A P300-Based Brain–Computer Interface: Effects of Interface Type and Screen Size

As a nonmuscular communication and control system for people with severe motor disabilities, brain–computer interface (BCI) has found several applications. Although a few empirical studies of BCI user performance do exist, little to no research has specifically evaluated the impact of contributing factors on user performance in the BCI applications. To that end, our within-subjects design compared the impact of two different types of interface (ABC interface vs. frequency-based interface) and three levels of screen size (computer monitor, global positioning system, and cell phone screen) of a P300-based BCI application, P300 Speller, on user performance (accuracy, information transfer rate, amplitude, and latency) and usage preference. Ten participants with neuromuscular disabilities such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and cerebral palsy and 10 nondisabled participants were asked to type six, 10-character phrases in the P300 Speller. The overall accuracy was 79.7% for the nondisabled participants and 28.7% for participants with motor disabilities. The results showed that interface type and screen size have significant effects on user performance and usage preference, with varying degree of impact to participants with and without motor disabilities. Specifically, participants typed significantly more accurately in frequency-based interface and computer monitor screen. The results of this study should provide invaluable insights to the future research of P300-based BCI applications.

[1]  G.F. Inbar,et al.  An improved P300-based brain-computer interface , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[2]  H. Lüders,et al.  American Electroencephalographic Society Guidelines for Standard Electrode Position Nomenclature , 1991, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[3]  Christa Neuper,et al.  Hidden Markov models for online classification of single trial EEG data , 2001, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[4]  Fazlollah M. Reza,et al.  Introduction to Information Theory , 2004, Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering.

[5]  Emanuel Donchin,et al.  Definition, Identification, and Reliability of Measurement of the P300 Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential , 1987 .

[6]  John Polich,et al.  P300 from a single-stimulus paradigm: auditory intensity and tone frequency effects , 1997, Biological Psychology.

[7]  Laura Astolfi,et al.  The Estimation of Cortical Activity for Brain-Computer Interface: Applications in a Domotic Context , 2007, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

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

[9]  Sean J. O'Connor,et al.  P300 topography of amplitude/latency correlations , 2005, Brain Topography.

[10]  John L. Czajka,et al.  Digest of Data on Persons with Disabilities. , 1984 .

[11]  Steven L. Johnson,et al.  Evaluation of P300-Based Brain-Computer Interface in Real-World Contexts , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[12]  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.

[13]  Melody Moore Jackson,et al.  Human factors issues in the neural signals direct brain-computer interfaces , 2000, Assets '00.

[14]  Robin Ficke.  Digest of Data on Persons with Disabilities. , 1992 .

[15]  J. Covington,et al.  P300, stimulus intensity, and modality. , 1996, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[16]  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.

[17]  E Gordon,et al.  The effects of age on auditory event-related potentials. , 1991, Experimental aging research.

[18]  J. Polich,et al.  P300 in young and elderly subjects: auditory frequency and intensity effects. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[19]  R. Lewand.  Cryptological Mathematics , 2000 .

[20]  F. Babiloni,et al.  The Estimation of Cortical Activity for Brain-Computer Interface: Applications in a Domotic Context , 2007, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[21]  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.

[22]  John Polich,et al.  P300 from auditory stimuli: intensity and frequency effects , 1995, Biological Psychology.

[23]  Cuntai Guan,et al.  High performance P300 speller for brain-computer interface , 2004, IEEE International Workshop on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, 2004..

[24]  Chang S. Nam,et al.  Environmental Noise and P300-Based Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) , 2008 .

[25]  Yoshio Hirayasu,et al.  Sex effects on rate of change of P300 latency with age , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[26]  Masud Mansuripur,et al.  Introduction to information theory , 1986 .

[27]  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.

[28]  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.

[29]  Young-Joo Kim,et al.  Usability of the P300 Speller: Towards a More Sustainable Brain-Computer Interface , 2009, e Minds Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

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