OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to increase the information transfer in brain-computer interfaces (BCI). Therefore, a multi-signature BCI was developed and investigated. Stimuli were designed to simultaneously evoke transient somatosensory event-related potentials (ERPs) and steady-state somatosensory potentials (SSSEPs) and the ERPs and SSSEPs in isolation. APPROACH: Twelve subjects participated in two sessions. In the first session, the single and combined stimulation conditions were compared on these somatosensory responses and on the classification performance. In the second session the on-line performance with the combined stimulation was evaluated while subjects received feedback. Furthermore, in both sessions, the performance based on ERP and SSSEP features was compared. MAIN RESULTS: No difference was found in the ERPs and SSSEPs between stimulation conditions. The combination of ERP and SSSEP features did not perform better than with ERP features only. In both sessions, the classification performances based on ERP and combined features were higher than the classification based on SSSEP features. SIGNIFICANCE: Although the multi-signature BCI did not increase performance, it also did not negatively impact it. Therefore, such stimuli could be used and the best performing feature set could then be chosen individually.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to increase the information transfer in brain-computer interfaces (BCI). Therefore, a multi-signature BCI was developed and investigated. Stimuli were designed to simultaneously evoke transient somatosensory event-related potentials (ERPs) and steady-state somatosensory potentials (SSSEPs) and the ERPs and SSSEPs in isolation. APPROACH: Twelve subjects participated in two sessions. In the first session, the single and combined stimulation conditions were compared on these somatosensory responses and on the classification performance. In the second session the on-line performance with the combined stimulation was evaluated while subjects received feedback. Furthermore, in both sessions, the performance based on ERP and SSSEP features was compared. MAIN RESULTS: No difference was found in the ERPs and SSSEPs between stimulation conditions. The combination of ERP and SSSEP features did not perform better than with ERP features only. In both sessions, the classification performances based on ERP and combined features were higher than the classification based on SSSEP features. SIGNIFICANCE: Although the multi-signature BCI did not increase performance, it also did not negatively impact it. Therefore, such stimuli could be used and the best performing feature set could then be chosen individually.
Authors: Martijn P Vlaar; Teodoro Solis-Escalante; Julius P A Dewald; Erwin E H van Wegen; Alfred C Schouten; Gert Kwakkel; Frans C T van der Helm Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 4.262