Stimuli and feature extraction methods for EEG-based brain-machine interfaces: a systematic comparison.

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Villalpando, Mayra Bittencourt
Data de Publicação: 2017
Tipo de documento: Dissertação
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP
Texto Completo: http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/3/3152/tde-19032018-090128/
Resumo: A brain-machine interface (BMI) is a system that allows the communication between the central nervous system (CNS) and an external device (Wolpaw et al. 2002). Applications of BMIs include the control of external prostheses, cursors and spellers, to name a few. The BMIs developed by various research groups differ in their characteristics (e.g. continuous or discrete, synchronous or asynchronous, degrees of freedom, others) and, in spite of several initiatives towards standardization and guidelines, the cross comparison across studies remains a challenge (Brunner et al. 2015; Thompson et al. 2014). Here, we used a 64-channel EEG equipment to acquire data from 19 healthy participants during three different tasks (SSVEP, P300 and hybrid) that allowed four choices to the user and required no previous neurofeedback training. We systematically compared the offline performance of the three tasks on the following parameters: a) accuracy, b) information transfer rate, c) illiteracy/inefficiency, and d) individual preferences. Additionally, we selected the best performing channels per task and evaluated the accuracy as a function of the number of electrodes. Our results demonstrate that the SSVEP task outperforms the other tasks in accuracy, ITR and illiteracy/inefficiency, reaching an average ITR** of 52,8 bits/min and a maximum ITR** of 104,2 bits/min. Additionally, all participants achieved an accuracy level above 70% (illiteracy/inefficiency threshold) in both SSVEP and P300 tasks. Furthermore, the average accuracy of all tasks did not deteriorate if a reduced set with only the 8 best performing electrodes were used. These results are relevant for the development of online BMIs, including aspects related to usability, user satisfaction and portability.
id USP_d3ceee89fb65b0fe19c2419b48976f37
oai_identifier_str oai:teses.usp.br:tde-19032018-090128
network_acronym_str USP
network_name_str Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP
repository_id_str 2721
spelling Stimuli and feature extraction methods for EEG-based brain-machine interfaces: a systematic comparison.Estímulos e métodos de extração de características para interfaces cérebro-máquina baseadas em EEG: uma comparação sistemática.Brain-Machine Interface (BMI)EletroencefalografiaEletroencephalography (EEG)Interface homem-computadorNeurociênciasP300Potenciais evocadosProcessamento de sinais biomédicosSSVEPA brain-machine interface (BMI) is a system that allows the communication between the central nervous system (CNS) and an external device (Wolpaw et al. 2002). Applications of BMIs include the control of external prostheses, cursors and spellers, to name a few. The BMIs developed by various research groups differ in their characteristics (e.g. continuous or discrete, synchronous or asynchronous, degrees of freedom, others) and, in spite of several initiatives towards standardization and guidelines, the cross comparison across studies remains a challenge (Brunner et al. 2015; Thompson et al. 2014). Here, we used a 64-channel EEG equipment to acquire data from 19 healthy participants during three different tasks (SSVEP, P300 and hybrid) that allowed four choices to the user and required no previous neurofeedback training. We systematically compared the offline performance of the three tasks on the following parameters: a) accuracy, b) information transfer rate, c) illiteracy/inefficiency, and d) individual preferences. Additionally, we selected the best performing channels per task and evaluated the accuracy as a function of the number of electrodes. Our results demonstrate that the SSVEP task outperforms the other tasks in accuracy, ITR and illiteracy/inefficiency, reaching an average ITR** of 52,8 bits/min and a maximum ITR** of 104,2 bits/min. Additionally, all participants achieved an accuracy level above 70% (illiteracy/inefficiency threshold) in both SSVEP and P300 tasks. Furthermore, the average accuracy of all tasks did not deteriorate if a reduced set with only the 8 best performing electrodes were used. These results are relevant for the development of online BMIs, including aspects related to usability, user satisfaction and portability.A interface cérebro-máquina (ICM) é um sistema que permite a comunicação entre o sistema nervoso central e um dispositivo externo (Wolpaw et al., 2002). Aplicações de ICMs incluem o controle de próteses externa, cursores e teclados virtuais, para citar alguns. As ICMs desenvolvidas por vários grupos de pesquisa diferem em suas características (por exemplo, contínua ou discreta, síncrona ou assíncrona, graus de liberdade, outras) e, apesar de várias iniciativas voltadas para diretrizes de padronização, a comparação entre os estudos continua desafiadora (Brunner et al. 2015, Thompson et al., 2014). Aqui, utilizamos um equipamento EEG de 64 canais para adquirir dados de 19 participantes saudáveis ao longo da execução de três diferentes tarefas (SSVEP, P300 e híbrida) que permitiram quatro escolhas ao usuário e não exigiram nenhum treinamento prévio. Comparamos sistematicamente o desempenho \"off-line\" das três tarefas nos seguintes parâmetros: a) acurácia, b) taxa de transferência de informação, c) analfabetismo / ineficiência e d) preferências individuais. Além disso, selecionamos os melhores canais por tarefa e avaliamos a acurácia em função do número de eletrodos. Nossos resultados demonstraram que a tarefa SSVEP superou as demais em acurácia, ITR e analfabetismo/ineficiência, atingindo um ITR** médio de 52,8 bits/min e um ITR** máximo de 104,2 bits/min. Adicionalmente, todos os participantes alcançaram um nível de acurácia acima de 70% (limiar de analfabetismo/ineficiência) nas tarefas SSVEP e P300. Além disso, a acurácia média de todas as tarefas não se deteriorou ao se utilizar um conjunto reduzido composto apenas pelos melhores 8 eletrodos. Estes resultados são relevantes para o desenvolvimento de ICMs \"online\", incluindo aspectos relacionados à usabilidade, satisfação do usuário e portabilidade.Biblioteca Digitais de Teses e Dissertações da USPCordero, Arturo FornerVillalpando, Mayra Bittencourt2017-06-29info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisapplication/pdfhttp://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/3/3152/tde-19032018-090128/reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USPinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPLiberar o conteúdo para acesso público.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesseng2018-07-19T20:50:39Zoai:teses.usp.br:tde-19032018-090128Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertaçõeshttp://www.teses.usp.br/PUBhttp://www.teses.usp.br/cgi-bin/mtd2br.plvirginia@if.usp.br|| atendimento@aguia.usp.br||virginia@if.usp.bropendoar:27212018-07-19T20:50:39Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Stimuli and feature extraction methods for EEG-based brain-machine interfaces: a systematic comparison.
Estímulos e métodos de extração de características para interfaces cérebro-máquina baseadas em EEG: uma comparação sistemática.
title Stimuli and feature extraction methods for EEG-based brain-machine interfaces: a systematic comparison.
spellingShingle Stimuli and feature extraction methods for EEG-based brain-machine interfaces: a systematic comparison.
Villalpando, Mayra Bittencourt
Brain-Machine Interface (BMI)
Eletroencefalografia
Eletroencephalography (EEG)
Interface homem-computador
Neurociências
P300
Potenciais evocados
Processamento de sinais biomédicos
SSVEP
title_short Stimuli and feature extraction methods for EEG-based brain-machine interfaces: a systematic comparison.
title_full Stimuli and feature extraction methods for EEG-based brain-machine interfaces: a systematic comparison.
title_fullStr Stimuli and feature extraction methods for EEG-based brain-machine interfaces: a systematic comparison.
title_full_unstemmed Stimuli and feature extraction methods for EEG-based brain-machine interfaces: a systematic comparison.
title_sort Stimuli and feature extraction methods for EEG-based brain-machine interfaces: a systematic comparison.
author Villalpando, Mayra Bittencourt
author_facet Villalpando, Mayra Bittencourt
author_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Cordero, Arturo Forner
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Villalpando, Mayra Bittencourt
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Brain-Machine Interface (BMI)
Eletroencefalografia
Eletroencephalography (EEG)
Interface homem-computador
Neurociências
P300
Potenciais evocados
Processamento de sinais biomédicos
SSVEP
topic Brain-Machine Interface (BMI)
Eletroencefalografia
Eletroencephalography (EEG)
Interface homem-computador
Neurociências
P300
Potenciais evocados
Processamento de sinais biomédicos
SSVEP
description A brain-machine interface (BMI) is a system that allows the communication between the central nervous system (CNS) and an external device (Wolpaw et al. 2002). Applications of BMIs include the control of external prostheses, cursors and spellers, to name a few. The BMIs developed by various research groups differ in their characteristics (e.g. continuous or discrete, synchronous or asynchronous, degrees of freedom, others) and, in spite of several initiatives towards standardization and guidelines, the cross comparison across studies remains a challenge (Brunner et al. 2015; Thompson et al. 2014). Here, we used a 64-channel EEG equipment to acquire data from 19 healthy participants during three different tasks (SSVEP, P300 and hybrid) that allowed four choices to the user and required no previous neurofeedback training. We systematically compared the offline performance of the three tasks on the following parameters: a) accuracy, b) information transfer rate, c) illiteracy/inefficiency, and d) individual preferences. Additionally, we selected the best performing channels per task and evaluated the accuracy as a function of the number of electrodes. Our results demonstrate that the SSVEP task outperforms the other tasks in accuracy, ITR and illiteracy/inefficiency, reaching an average ITR** of 52,8 bits/min and a maximum ITR** of 104,2 bits/min. Additionally, all participants achieved an accuracy level above 70% (illiteracy/inefficiency threshold) in both SSVEP and P300 tasks. Furthermore, the average accuracy of all tasks did not deteriorate if a reduced set with only the 8 best performing electrodes were used. These results are relevant for the development of online BMIs, including aspects related to usability, user satisfaction and portability.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-06-29
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
format masterThesis
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/3/3152/tde-19032018-090128/
url http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/3/3152/tde-19032018-090128/
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Liberar o conteúdo para acesso público.
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Liberar o conteúdo para acesso público.
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.coverage.none.fl_str_mv
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Biblioteca Digitais de Teses e Dissertações da USP
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Biblioteca Digitais de Teses e Dissertações da USP
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv
reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP
collection Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv virginia@if.usp.br|| atendimento@aguia.usp.br||virginia@if.usp.br
_version_ 1815257164071043072