| Literature DB >> 25620924 |
Nadine Simon1, Ivo Käthner2, Carolin A Ruf3, Emanuele Pasqualotto4, Andrea Kübler2, Sebastian Halder2.
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can serve as muscle independent communication aids. Persons, who are unable to control their eye muscles (e.g., in the completely locked-in state) or have severe visual impairments for other reasons, need BCI systems that do not rely on the visual modality. For this reason, BCIs that employ auditory stimuli were suggested. In this study, a multiclass BCI spelling system was implemented that uses animal voices with directional cues to code rows and columns of a letter matrix. To reveal possible training effects with the system, 11 healthy participants performed spelling tasks on 2 consecutive days. In a second step, the system was tested by a participant with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in two sessions. In the first session, healthy participants spelled with an average accuracy of 76% (3.29 bits/min) that increased to 90% (4.23 bits/min) on the second day. Spelling accuracy by the participant with ALS was 20% in the first and 47% in the second session. The results indicate a strong training effect for both the healthy participants and the participant with ALS. While healthy participants reached high accuracies in the first session and second session, accuracies for the participant with ALS were not sufficient for satisfactory communication in both sessions. More training sessions might be needed to improve spelling accuracies. The study demonstrated the feasibility of the auditory BCI with healthy users and stresses the importance of training with auditory multiclass BCIs, especially for potential end-users of BCI with disease.Entities:
Keywords: ALS; EEG; P300; auditory BCI; brain-computer interface; communication
Year: 2015 PMID: 25620924 PMCID: PMC4288388 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01039
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Visualization of the tasks needed to spell a specific word. To select a particular letter (in this example the letter A), participants had to first focus attention on the tone coding the target row and in the second step, concentrate on the tone coding the target column (twice duck in the example). The tones were played in random order and the sequence of all tones was repeated a total of 10 times. The matrix was displayed to the participants during spelling. For copyright reasons the displayed animal illustrations differ from those used in the experiment.
Figure 2Spectrograms of the auditory stimuli.
Figure 3Visualization of the simulated sound sources for the five animal voices that was presented to the participants during the experiment.
Blocks of letters that had to be spelled during the two sessions.
| Calibration | AGMSY | Classification weights of Session 1 | VARIO |
| AGMSY | GRUEN | ||
| AGMSY | HUNGER | ||
| Letters to be spelled | 15 | 15 | 16 |
| Copy spelling | VARIO | VARIO | |
| GRUEN | GRUEN | ||
| HUNGER | HUNGER | ||
| TUMBI | TUMBI | TUMBI | |
| RUBIO | RUBIO | RUBIO | |
| VALERI | VALERI | VALERI | |
| UMBIT | UMBIT | UMBIT | |
| PHLEX | PHLEX | PHLEX | |
| VIRAGO | VIRAGO | VIRAGO | |
| Letters to be spelled | 48 | 48 | 32 |
| Free spelling | 5 letter word of own choice | BRAIN POWER | BRAIN POWER |
| Letters to be spelled | 5 | 10 | 10 |
Classification accuracies and bitrates of all healthy participants.
| 1 | 82 | 94 | 3.49 | 4.50 | 80 | 90 | 3.34 | 4.14 |
| 2 | 91 | 91 | 4.22 | 4.22 | 100 | 100 | 5.17 | 5.17 |
| 3 | 58 | 88 | 1.93 | 3.97 | 40 | 90 | 1.03 | 4.14 |
| 4 | 83 | 75 | 3.57 | 2.99 | 80 | 60 | 3.34 | 2.05 |
| 5 | 78 | 75 | 3.20 | 2.99 | 100 | 100 | 5.17 | 5.17 |
| 6 | 21 | 100 | 0.31 | 5.17 | 40 | 100 | 1.03 | 5.17 |
| 7 | 94 | 100 | 4.50 | 5.17 | 100 | 100 | 5.17 | 5.17 |
| 8 | 72 | 88 | 2.79 | 3.97 | 60 | 90 | 2.05 | 4.14 |
| 9 | 98 | 97 | 4.91 | 4.80 | 100 | 100 | 5.17 | 5.17 |
| 10 | 77 | 84 | 3.13 | 3.65 | 40 | 90 | 1.03 | 4.14 |
| 11 | 90 | 100 | 4.14 | 5.17 | 80 | 100 | 3.34 | 5.17 |
| 76.73 | 90.18 | 3.29 | 4.23 | 74.55 | 92.73 | 3.26 | 4.51 | |
| 21.63 | 9.27 | 1.30 | 0.81 | 25.44 | 11.91 | 1.76 | 0.96 | |
The accuracies were calculated as the percentage of correct letter selections. Accuracies of Session 2 were calculated offline.
Confusion matrices for Session 1 and 2 for healthy participants.
| Duck | 8 | 6 | 8 | 15 | 82 | |
| Bird | 4 | 6 | 14 | 12 | 85 | |
| Frog | 6 | 10 | 4 | 11 | 85 | |
| Seagull | 7 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 88 | |
| Dove | 2 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 93 | |
| False positive (in %) | 9.95 | 11.21 | 10.55 | 14.63 | 19.65 | |
| Duck | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 95 | |
| Bird | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 95 | |
| Frog | 4 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 89 | |
| Seagull | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 96 | |
| Dove | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 98 | |
| False positive (in %) | 5.56 | 3.11 | 3.28 | 7.30 | 7.14 | |
Classification accuracies of the single tones are shown in the right column, false positives in the bottom row, correct classifications (hits) are in printed in bold.
Figure 4(A) Average waveforms for targets (thick lines) and non-targets (thin lines) at Pz for healthy participants and scalp plots of differential ERP activity (targets minus non-targets) for different time points. (B) Average waveforms for targets (thick lines) and non-targets (thin lines) at Pz for the participant with ALS and scalp plots of differential ERP activity (targets minus non-targets) for different time points.
Figure 5Scores of the study participants for the items of the system usability scale (mean ± standard deviation). The answers of the participant with ALS are marked with an X.