| Literature DB >> 23565083 |
S Halder1, B Varkuti, M Bogdan, A Kübler, W Rosenstiel, R Sitaram, N Birbaumer.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Brain-computer interface (BCI) provide a non-muscular communication channel for patients with impairments of the motor system. A significant number of BCI users is unable to obtain voluntary control of a BCI-system in proper time. This makes methods that can be used to determine the aptitude of a user necessary.Entities:
Keywords: BCI; DTI; aptitude; fractional anisotropy; motor imagery
Year: 2013 PMID: 23565083 PMCID: PMC3613602 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00105
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.169
Details of EEG experiments.
| Execution | 8 s | 25 | 3 |
| Observation | 10 s | 20 | 3 |
| Imagery calibration | 8 s | 75 | 3 |
| Imagery feedback | 9 s | 150 | 2 |
Each participant performed motor execution, observation, and imagery used for calibration of the classifier of the BCI and finally motor imagery with SMR-feedback with the optimal combination of two of the three classes (right hand vs. left hand, right hand vs. foot, or left hand vs. foot).
Figure 1The result of the multiplication of the weight and feature vector is shown on the x-axis. The high and low aptitude users are grouped on two separate horizontal lines on the y-axis (red circles high aptitude users, blue circles low aptitude users). This is only used to visually differentiate high from low aptitude users visually. The decision plane used by the classifier therefore has to be a horizontal line (dashed green line). It is optimally placed anywhere between VPTBP and VPTAJ. This placement causes the single error in our classification procedure (prediction of the group of VPTAQ, marked by a black “x”). The weights used to calculate the position of each participant are the ones obtained when this participant comprises the test dataset.
Correlations between FA value and BCI performance of the regions used most often for prediction of the aptitude group.
| 0.63 | 0.009 | Yes | 38 | CGH-R | Cingulum (Hippocampus) right | 100 |
| 0.54 | 0.029 | Yes | 43 | SFO-L | Superior Fronto-Occipital Fasciculus left | 100 |
| 0.54 | 0.032 | Yes | 4 | BCC | Body of Corpus Callosum | 100 |
| 0.52 | 0.040 | Yes | 15 | CP-L | Cerebral Peduncle left | 100 |
| 0.51 | 0.043 | Yes | 28 | PCR-R | Posterior Corona Radiata right | 87.5 |
| 0.50 | 0.051 | No | 34 | EC-R | External Capsule right | 100 |
| 0.48 | 0.060 | No | 1 | MCP | Middle Cerebellar peduncle | 87.5 |
| 0.47 | 0.065 | No | 16 | CP-R | Cerebral Peduncle right | 93.75 |
| 0.21 | 0.429 | No | 17 | ALIC-L | Anterior limb of Internal Capsule left | 81.25 |
| −0.01 | 0.956 | No | 21 | RLIC-L | Retrolenticular part of Internal Capsule left | 68.75 |
Only correlations above the second to last horizontal black line are significant (FDR corrected, p < 0.05).
Figure 2The top five white matter regions which were most discriminating in the low vs. high BCI-aptitude group comparison (based on feature use over CV-folds) and showed significant correlations (FDR corrected, Red, Body of Corpus Callosum; Green, left Cerebral Peduncle; Blue, right Posterior Corona Radiata; Lilac, right Cingulum (Hippocampus area); Yellow, left Superior Fronto-Occipital Fasciculus.