| Literature DB >> 31787871 |
Jun Xie1,2,3, Guangjing Du1, Guanghua Xu1,3, Xingang Zhao2, Peng Fang4, Min Li1, Guozhi Cao1, Guanglin Li4, Tao Xue1, Yanjun Zhang1.
Abstract
Adding noise to a weak input signal can enhance the response of a non-linear system, a phenomenon known as stochastic resonance (SR). SR has been demonstrated in a variety of diverse sensory systems including the visual system, where visual noise enhances human motion perception and detection performance. The SR effect has not been extensively studied in brain-computer interface (BCI) applications. This study compares the performance of BCIs based on SR-influenced steady-state motion visual evoked potentials. Stimulation paradigms were used between a periodically monochromatic motion-reversing simple ring and complex alternating checkerboard stimuli. To induce the SR effect, dynamic visual noise was masked on both the periodic simple and complex stimuli. Offline results showed that the recognition accuracy of different stimulation targets followed an inverted U-shaped function of noise level, which is a hallmark of SR. With the optimal visual noise level, the proposed visual noise masked checkerboard BCI paradigm achieved faster and more stable detection performance due to the noise-enhanced brain responses. This work demonstrates that the SR effect can be employed in BCI applications and can achieve considerable performance improvements.Entities:
Keywords: brain-computer interface (BCI); checkerboard; motion-reversing stimulation; single ring; stochastic resonance (SR); visual noise
Year: 2019 PMID: 31787871 PMCID: PMC6856080 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2019.01192
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 1Electrode montage used in this study. EEG signals were recorded from six electrodes: PO3, POz, PO4, O1, Oz, and O2.
FIGURE 2Stimulus paradigms used in this study. (A) Contraction-expansion procedure of the motion-reversing single ring under an NSD value of 0. (B) Contraction-expansion procedure of the motion-reversing checkerboard under an NSD value of 0. The red boundary line shows a single ring on the checkerboard. (C) Distribution of four simple ring stimulators on the screen under an NSD value of 24. (D) Distribution of four complex checkerboard stimulators on the screen under an NSD value of 24.
FIGURE 3Experimental procedure.
FIGURE 4Averaged SSMVEP waveform and corresponding power spectra of Subject S1 at different motion reversion frequencies (MRFs). (A) Averaged SSMVEP waveform and power spectra at an MRF of 6 Hz. (B) Averaged SSMVEP waveform and power spectra at an MRF of 7 Hz. (C) Averaged SSMVEP waveform and power spectra at an MRF of 8 Hz. (D) Averaged SSMVEP waveform and power spectra at an MRF of 9 Hz.
FIGURE 5Grand-averaged detection accuracies as a function of NSD values. (A) Averaged detection accuracies with a time-window length of 2 s for all subjects. (B) Standard deviations of the averaged detection accuracies across subjects.
FIGURE 6Performance comparisons for different channel selections. (A) Averaged detection accuracies of different channel selections at an MRF of 6 Hz. (B) Averaged detection accuracies of different channel selections at an MRF of 7 Hz. (C) Averaged detection accuracies of different channel selections at an MRF of 8 Hz. (D) Averaged detection accuracies of different channel selections at an MRF of 9 Hz.
FIGURE 7Time-frequency analysis results of SSVMEP signals based on a complex Morlet CWT with a time-window length of 5 s (i.e., 6000 sampling points). (A) Time-frequency graph of SSMVEP signals at an MRF of 7 Hz under different NSD values in the single ring paradigm. (B) Time-frequency graph of SSMVEP signals at an MRF of 7 Hz under different NSD values in the checkerboard paradigm.
FIGURE 8Grand-averaged recognition accuracies and their standard deviations in checkerboard and single ring paradigms with different time-window lengths. (A) Averaged recognition accuracies and standard deviations at an MRF of 6 Hz. (B) Averaged recognition accuracies and standard deviations at an MRF of 7 Hz. (C) Averaged recognition accuracies and standard deviations at an MRF of 8 Hz. (D) Averaged recognition accuracies and standard deviations at an MRF of 9 Hz.
BCI performance of all subjects in the online experiment.
| S1 | 92.50 | 35.92 | 76.25 | 19.99 |
| S2 | 92.50 | 35.92 | 91.25 | 34.40 |
| S3 | 90.00 | 32.94 | 83.75 | 26.45 |
| S4 | 98.75 | 45.20 | 100.00 | 48 |
| S5 | 78.75 | 22.01 | 73.75 | 18.08 |
| S6 | 66.25 | 13.02 | 62.50 | 10.83 |
| S7 | 75.25 | 19.21 | 63.75 | 11.54 |
| S8 | 95.00 | 39.22 | 78.75 | 22.01 |
| S9 | 77.50 | 20.98 | 63.75 | 11.54 |
| S10 | 97.50 | 43.00 | 88.75 | 31.54 |
| Average | 86.50 ± 10.97 | 30.74 ± 11.10 | 78.25 ± 12.80 | 23.44 ± 11.94 |