| Literature DB >> 28420954 |
Yuhang Zhang1,2, Saurabh Prasad2, Atilla Kilicarslan1, Jose L Contreras-Vidal1.
Abstract
With the development of Brain Machine Interface (BMI) systems, people with motor disabilities are able to control external devices to help them restore movement abilities. Longitudinal validation of these systems is critical not only to assess long-term performance reliability but also to investigate adaptations in electrocortical patterns due to learning to use the BMI system. In this paper, we decode the patterns of user's intended gait states (e.g., stop, walk, turn left, and turn right) from scalp electroencephalography (EEG) signals and simultaneously learn the relative importance of different brain areas by using the multiple kernel learning (MKL) algorithm. The region of importance (ROI) is identified during training the MKL for classification. The efficacy of the proposed method is validated by classifying different movement intentions from two subjects-an able-bodied and a spinal cord injury (SCI) subject. The preliminary results demonstrate that frontal and fronto-central regions are the most important regions for the tested subjects performing gait movements, which is consistent with the brain regions hypothesized to be involved in the control of lower-limb movements. However, we observed some regional changes comparing the able-bodied and the SCI subject. Moreover, in the longitudinal experiments, our findings exhibit the cortical plasticity triggered by the BMI use, as the classification accuracy and the weights for important regions-in sensor space-generally increased, as the user learned to control the exoskeleton for movement over multiple sessions.Entities:
Keywords: brain machine interface (BMI); electroencephalography (EEG); machine learning; multiple kernel learning; neural classification
Year: 2017 PMID: 28420954 PMCID: PMC5376592 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00170
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
Figure 1A volunteer controlling NeuroRex via the EEG BMI system.
Figure 2Flowchart of the region importance learning framework.
Figure 3Scalp regions of interest (ROIs).
Scalp ROI names.
| 1 | Anterior Frontal (AF) | 8 | Left Parieto-Occipital (LPO) |
| 2 | Left Fronto-Central (LFC) | 9 | Middle Parieto-Occipital (MPO) |
| 3 | Midline Fronto-Central (MFC) | 10 | Right Parieto-Occipital (RPO) |
| 4 | Right Fronto-Central (RFC) | 11 | Left Temporal (LT) |
| 5 | Left Centro-Parietal (LCP) | 12 | Right Temporal (RT) |
| 6 | Midline Centro-Parietal (MCP) | 13 | Occipital (O) |
| 7 | Right Centro-Parietal (RCP) |
Figure 4Comparison of kernel weights for different ROIs from (A) able-bodied subject and (B) SCI subject in Task 1.
Figure 5Confusion matrices (%) for (A) able-bodied subject and (B) SCI subject in Task 1.
Figure 6Scalp maps of weights along 9 sessions for the able-bodied subject in Task 2.
Figure 7Scalp maps of weights along 9 sessions for the SCI subject in Task 2.
Figure 8Plots of overall accuracy and kernel weight for ROI 3 as a function of session for the able-bodied subject in Task 2. (A) Overall accuracy as a function of session. (B) Kernel weight for ROI 3 as a function of session.
Figure 9Plots of overall accuracy and kernel weight for ROI 4 and ROI 5 as a function of session for the SCI subject in Task 2. (A) Overall accuracy as a function of session. (B) Kernel weight for ROI 4 as a function of session. (C) Kernel weight for ROI 5 as a function of session.