OBJECTIVE: Previous work has shown that it is possible to build an EEG-based binary brain-computer interface system (BCI) driven purely by shifts of attention to auditory stimuli. However, previous studies used abrupt, abstract stimuli that are often perceived as harsh and unpleasant, and whose lack of inherent meaning may make the interface unintuitive and difficult for beginners. We aimed to establish whether we could transition to a system based on more natural, intuitive stimuli (spoken words 'yes' and 'no') without loss of performance, and whether the system could be used by people in the locked-in state. APPROACH: We performed a counterbalanced, interleaved within-subject comparison between an auditory streaming BCI that used beep stimuli, and one that used word stimuli. Fourteen healthy volunteers performed two sessions each, on separate days. We also collected preliminary data from two subjects with advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), who used the word-based system to answer a set of simple yes-no questions. MAIN RESULTS: The N1, N2 and P3 event-related potentials elicited by words varied more between subjects than those elicited by beeps. However, the difference between responses to attended and unattended stimuli was more consistent with words than beeps. Healthy subjects' performance with word stimuli (mean 77% ± 3.3 s.e.) was slightly but not significantly better than their performance with beep stimuli (mean 73% ± 2.8 s.e.). The two subjects with ALS used the word-based BCI to answer questions with a level of accuracy similar to that of the healthy subjects. SIGNIFICANCE: Since performance using word stimuli was at least as good as performance using beeps, we recommend that auditory streaming BCI systems be built with word stimuli to make the system more pleasant and intuitive. Our preliminary data show that word-based streaming BCI is a promising tool for communication by people who are locked in.
OBJECTIVE: Previous work has shown that it is possible to build an EEG-based binary brain-computer interface system (BCI) driven purely by shifts of attention to auditory stimuli. However, previous studies used abrupt, abstract stimuli that are often perceived as harsh and unpleasant, and whose lack of inherent meaning may make the interface unintuitive and difficult for beginners. We aimed to establish whether we could transition to a system based on more natural, intuitive stimuli (spoken words 'yes' and 'no') without loss of performance, and whether the system could be used by people in the locked-in state. APPROACH: We performed a counterbalanced, interleaved within-subject comparison between an auditory streaming BCI that used beep stimuli, and one that used word stimuli. Fourteen healthy volunteers performed two sessions each, on separate days. We also collected preliminary data from two subjects with advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), who used the word-based system to answer a set of simple yes-no questions. MAIN RESULTS: The N1, N2 and P3 event-related potentials elicited by words varied more between subjects than those elicited by beeps. However, the difference between responses to attended and unattended stimuli was more consistent with words than beeps. Healthy subjects' performance with word stimuli (mean 77% ± 3.3 s.e.) was slightly but not significantly better than their performance with beep stimuli (mean 73% ± 2.8 s.e.). The two subjects with ALS used the word-based BCI to answer questions with a level of accuracy similar to that of the healthy subjects. SIGNIFICANCE: Since performance using word stimuli was at least as good as performance using beeps, we recommend that auditory streaming BCI systems be built with word stimuli to make the system more pleasant and intuitive. Our preliminary data show that word-based streaming BCI is a promising tool for communication by people who are locked in.
Authors: Gerwin Schalk; Dennis J McFarland; Thilo Hinterberger; Niels Birbaumer; Jonathan R Wolpaw Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: D S Klobassa; T M Vaughan; P Brunner; N E Schwartz; J R Wolpaw; C Neuper; E W Sellers Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: N Jeremy Hill; Aisha Moinuddin; Ann-Katrin Häuser; Stephan Kienzle; Gerwin Schalk Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Jonathan S Brumberg; Kevin M Pitt; Alana Mantie-Kozlowski; Jeremy D Burnison Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Lynn M McCane; Susan M Heckman; Dennis J McFarland; George Townsend; Joseph N Mak; Eric W Sellers; Debra Zeitlin; Laura M Tenteromano; Jonathan R Wolpaw; Theresa M Vaughan Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Lynn M McCane; Eric W Sellers; Dennis J McFarland; Joseph N Mak; C Steve Carmack; Debra Zeitlin; Jonathan R Wolpaw; Theresa M Vaughan Journal: Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 4.092
Authors: Jonathan R Wolpaw; Richard S Bedlack; Domenic J Reda; Robert J Ringer; Patricia G Banks; Theresa M Vaughan; Susan M Heckman; Lynn M McCane; Charles S Carmack; Stefan Winden; Dennis J McFarland; Eric W Sellers; Hairong Shi; Tamara Paine; Donald S Higgins; Albert C Lo; Huned S Patwa; Katherine J Hill; Grant D Huang; Robert L Ruff Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 11.800