Literature DB >> 9342887

EEG-based communication: evaluation of alternative signal prediction methods.

H Ramoser1, J R Wolpaw, G Pfurtscheller.   

Abstract

Individuals can learn to control the amplitude of EEG activity in specific frequency bands over sensorimotor cortex and use it to move a cursor to a target on a computer screen. For one-dimensional (i.e., vertical) cursor movement, a linear equation translates the EEG activity into cursor movement. To translate an individual's EEG control into cursor control as effectively as possible, the intercept in this equation, which determines whether upward or downward movement occurs, should be set so that top and bottom targets are equally accessible. The present study compares alternative methods for using an individual's previous performance to select the intercept for subsequent trials. In offline analyses, five different intercept selection methods were applied to EEG data collected while trained subjects were moving the cursor to targets at the top or bottom edge of the screen. In the first two methods-moving average, and weighted sum-a single intercept was selected for the entire 1-2 sec period of each trial. In the other three methods-blocked moving average, blocked weighted sum, and blocked recursive sum (a variation of the weighted sum)-an intercept was selected for each 200-ms segment of the trial. The results from these methods were compared in regard to their balance between upward and downward movements and their consistency of performance across trials. For all subjects combined, the five methods performed similarly. However, performance across subjects was more consistent for the moving average, blocked moving average, and blocked recursive sum methods than for the weighted sum and blocked weighted sum methods. Due to its consistent performance and its computational simplicity, the moving average method, using the five most recent pairs of top and bottom trials, appears to be the method of choice.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9342887     DOI: 10.1515/bmte.1997.42.9.226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomed Tech (Berl)        ISSN: 0013-5585            Impact factor:   1.411


  6 in total

1.  Clinical Applications of Brain-Computer Interfaces: Current State and Future Prospects.

Authors:  Joseph N Mak; Jonathan R Wolpaw
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2009

2.  Should the parameters of a BCI translation algorithm be continually adapted?

Authors:  Dennis J McFarland; William A Sarnacki; Jonathan R Wolpaw
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2011-05-06       Impact factor: 2.390

3.  Control of a two-dimensional movement signal by a noninvasive brain-computer interface in humans.

Authors:  Jonathan R Wolpaw; Dennis J McFarland
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-12-07       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Workshops of the Fifth International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting: Defining the Future.

Authors:  Jane E Huggins; Christoph Guger; Brendan Allison; Charles W Anderson; Aaron Batista; Anne-Marie A-M Brouwer; Clemens Brunner; Ricardo Chavarriaga; Melanie Fried-Oken; Aysegul Gunduz; Disha Gupta; Andrea Kübler; Robert Leeb; Fabien Lotte; Lee E Miller; Gernot Müller-Putz; Tomasz Rutkowski; Michael Tangermann; David Edward Thompson
Journal:  Brain Comput Interfaces (Abingdon)       Date:  2014-01

5.  BioSig: the free and open source software library for biomedical signal processing.

Authors:  Carmen Vidaurre; Tilmann H Sander; Alois Schlögl
Journal:  Comput Intell Neurosci       Date:  2011-03-08

6.  Functional disconnection of associative cortical areas predicts performance during BCI training.

Authors:  Marie-Constance Corsi; Mario Chavez; Denis Schwartz; Nathalie George; Laurent Hugueville; Ari E Kahn; Sophie Dupont; Danielle S Bassett; Fabrizio De Vico Fallani
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 6.556

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.