| Literature DB >> 32132894 |
Androu Abdalmalak1,2, Daniel Milej1,2, Lawrence C M Yip1,2, Ali R Khan1,3, Mamadou Diop1,2, Adrian M Owen4, Keith St Lawrence1,2.
Abstract
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are becoming increasingly popular as a tool to improve the quality of life of patients with disabilities. Recently, time-resolved functional near-infrared spectroscopy (TR-fNIRS) based BCIs are gaining traction because of their enhanced depth sensitivity leading to lower signal contamination from the extracerebral layers. This study presents the first account of TR-fNIRS based BCI for "mental communication" on healthy participants. Twenty-one (21) participants were recruited and were repeatedly asked a series of questions where they were instructed to imagine playing tennis for "yes" and to stay relaxed for "no." The change in the mean time-of-flight of photons was used to calculate the change in concentrations of oxy- and deoxyhemoglobin since it provides a good compromise between depth sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio. Features were extracted from the average oxyhemoglobin signals to classify them as "yes" or "no" responses. Linear-discriminant analysis (LDA) and support vector machine (SVM) classifiers were used to classify the responses using the leave-one-out cross-validation method. The overall accuracies achieved for all participants were 75% and 76%, using LDA and SVM, respectively. The results also reveal that there is no significant difference in accuracy between questions. In addition, physiological parameters [heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP)] were recorded on seven of the 21 participants during motor imagery (MI) and rest to investigate changes in these parameters between conditions. No significant difference in these parameters was found between conditions. These findings suggest that TR-fNIRS could be suitable as a BCI for patients with brain injuries.Entities:
Keywords: brain-computer interface; disorders of consciousness; functional near-infrared spectroscopy; motor-imagery; time-resolved measurement
Year: 2020 PMID: 32132894 PMCID: PMC7040089 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00105
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 1(A) A participant wearing the TR-fNIRS cap with the probes positioned over the SMA and PMC. (B) Study protocol illustrating the rest and response periods. The total time per question was 5:30 min, which consisted of five 30-s answer periods.
Features extracted from the oxyhemoglobin time-courses and how each feature was calculated.
| Feature | Calculation |
| Median change in signal (SM) | Difference between the median change during the task (excluding the first 10 s) and the preceding rest period |
| Signal slope (SS) | Slope of the first 16 s during the task period |
| Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) | Difference between the mean change during the task and the preceding rest period divided by the standard deviation of the rest period |
| Correlation coefficient ( | Correlation coefficient between the change in the hemoglobin concentration time-courses and the theoretical activation model (i.e., box function convolved with a hemodynamic response function) |
Individual classification results for each participant.
| Participant number | LDA Accuracy (%) | SVM Accuracy (%) |
| 1 | 75 | 75 |
| 2 | 50 | 50 |
| 3 | 75 | 75 |
| 4 | 50 | 75 |
| 5 | 100 | 100 |
| 6 | 100 | 100 |
| 7 | 75 | 75 |
| 8 | 100 | 100 |
| 9 | 75 | 75 |
| 10 | 100 | 100 |
| 11 | 75 | 100 |
| 12 | 75 | 75 |
| 13 | 75 | 75 |
| 14 | 50 | 75 |
| 15 | 50 | 50 |
| 16 | 100 | 75 |
| 17 | 75 | 50 |
| 18 | 50 | 50 |
FIGURE 22D feature space showing the relationship between SS and r for all of the “yes” and “no” responses.
FIGURE 3Sample time courses of ΔC and ΔC for one participant and two questions. Each time course was averaged across data from all four channels. The time course on the left was classified as “yes” while the one on the right was classified as “no.” The gray boxes indicate the response periods. The error bars represent the standard error of mean across channels.
FIGURE 4ΔC(red) and ΔCHb (blue) for each question averaged across all trials, channels, and participants. Each column represents a different question. The first row (A) shows the signals that were classified as “yes” while the second row (B) shows the signals that were classified as “no.” The gray boxes indicate the response period. The error bars represent the standard error of mean across participants (n = 18).
FIGURE 5(A) Classification accuracy obtained versus the number of cycles used for classification. The box plot shows the variation in accuracy for all 15 unique combinations of features. The red circles represent the accuracy for the set of features that was selected as optimum (B) Classification accuracy obtained for questions 1–4 using five cycles for classification.
FIGURE 6ΔC averaged across channels, trials and participants for (A) the “yes” responses and (B) the “no” responses. The solid lines show the signals based on the SVM classifier output while the dashed lines represent the ground truth responses. The error bars represent the standard error of mean across participants (n = 18).
Physiological parameters obtained during motor imagery and rest.
| Rest | Change during MI | Range | |
| MAP (mmHg) | 77 ± 8 | 2 ± 1 | −3, 5 |
| HR (bpm) | 70 ± 10 | 3 ± 2 | −5, 5 |