Biomedical subjects

Theresa M Vaughan

Publications and source records attributed to Theresa M Vaughan.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

A comparison of classification techniques for the P300 Speller.

This study assesses the relative performance characteristics of five established classification techniques on data collected using the P300 Speller paradigm, originally described by Farwell and Donchin (1988 Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 70 510). Four linear methods: Pearson's correlation method (PCM), Fisher's linear discriminant (FLD), stepwise linear discriminant analysis (SWLDA) and a linear support vector machine (LSVM); and one nonlinear method: Gaussian kernel support vector machine (GSVM), are compared for classifying offline data from eight users. The relative performance of the classifiers is evaluated, along with the practical concerns regarding the implementation of the respective methods. The results indicate that while all methods attained acceptable performance levels, SWLDA and FLD provide the best overall performance and implementation characteristics for practical classification of P300 Speller data.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

A P300 event-related potential brain-computer interface (BCI): the effects of matrix size and inter stimulus interval on performance.

We describe a study designed to assess properties of a P300 brain-computer interface (BCI). The BCI presents the user with a matrix containing letters and numbers. The user attends to a character to be communicated and the rows and columns of the matrix briefly intensify. Each time the attended character is intensified it serves as a rare event in an oddball sequence and it elicits a P300 response. The BCI works by detecting which character elicited a P300 response. We manipulated the size of the character matrix (either 3 x 3 or 6 x 6) and the duration of the inter stimulus interval (ISI) between intensifications (either 175 or 350 ms). Online accuracy was highest for the 3 x 3 matrix 175-ms ISI condition, while bit rate was highest for the 6 x 6 matrix 175-ms ISI condition. Average accuracy in the best condition for each subject was 88%. P300 amplitude was significantly greater for the attended stimulus and for the 6 x 6 matrix. This work demonstrates that matrix size and ISI are important variables to consider when optimizing a BCI system for individual users and that a P300-BCI can be used for effective communication.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

The Wadsworth BCI Research and Development Program: at home with BCI.

The ultimate goal of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology is to provide communication and control capacities to people with severe motor disabilities. BCI research at the Wadsworth Center focuses primarily on noninvasive, electroencephalography (EEG)-based BCI methods. We have shown that people, including those with severe motor disabilities, can learn to use sensorimotor rhythms (SMRs) to move a cursor rapidly and accurately in one or two dimensions. We have also improved P300-based BCI operation. We are now translating this laboratory-proven BCI technology into a system that can be used by severely disabled people in their homes with minimal ongoing technical oversight. To accomplish this, we have: improved our general-purpose BCI software (BCI2000); improved online adaptation and feature translation for SMR-based BCI operation; improved the accuracy and bandwidth of P300-based BCI operation; reduced the complexity of system hardware and software and begun to evaluate home system use in appropriate users. These developments have resulted in prototype systems for every day use in people's homes.

Animals↗

PubMed2006

The Third International Meeting on Brain-Computer Interface Technology: making a difference.

This special issue of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL SYSTEMS AND REHABILITATION ENGINEERING provides a representative and comprehensive bird's-eye view of the most recent developments in brain-computer interface (BCI) technology from laboratories around the world. The 30 research communications and papers are the direct outcome of the Third International Meeting on Brain-Computer Interface Technology held at the Rensselaerville Institute, Rensselaerville, NY, in June 2005. Fifty-three research groups from North and South America, Europe, and Asia, representing the majority of all the existing BCI laboratories around the world, participated in this highly focused meeting sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and organized by the BCI Laboratory of the Wadsworth Center of the New York State Department of Health. As demonstrated by the papers in this special issue, the rapid advances in BCI research and development make this technology capable of providing communication and control to people severely disabled by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), brainstem stroke, cerebral palsy, and other neuromuscular disorders. Future work is expected to improve the performance and utility of BCIs, and to focus increasingly on making them a viable, practical, and affordable communication alternative for many thousands of severely disabled people worldwide.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2005

Brain-computer interface (BCI) operation: signal and noise during early training sessions.

OBJECTIVE: People can learn to control mu (8-12 Hz) or beta (18-25 Hz) rhythm amplitude in the electroencephalogram (EEG) recorded over sensorimotor cortex and use it to move a cursor to a target on a video screen. The recorded signal may also contain electromyogram (EMG) and other non-EEG artifacts. This study examines the presence and characteristics of EMG contamination during new users' initial brain-computer interface (BCI) training sessions, as they first attempt to acquire control over mu or beta rhythm amplitude and to use that control to move a cursor to a target. METHODS: In the standard one-dimensional format, a target appears along the right edge of the screen and 1s later the cursor appears in the middle of the left edge and moves across the screen at a fixed rate with its vertical movement controlled by a linear function of mu or beta rhythm amplitude. In the basic two-choice version, the target occupies the upper or lower half of the right edge. The user's task is to move the cursor vertically so that it hits the target when it reaches the right edge. The present data comprise the first 10 sessions of BCI training from each of 7 users. Their data were selected to illustrate the variations seen in EMG contamination across users. RESULTS: Five of the 7 users learned to change rhythm amplitude appropriately, so that the cursor hit the target. Three of these 5 showed no evidence of EMG contamination. In the other two of these 5, EMG was prominent in early sessions, and tended to be associated with errors rather than with hits. As EEG control improved over the 10 sessions, this EMG contamination disappeared. In the remaining two users, who never acquired actual EEG control, EMG was prominent in initial sessions and tended to move the cursor to the target. This EMG contamination was still detectable by Session 10. CONCLUSIONS: EMG contamination arising from cranial muscles is often present early in BCI training and gradually wanes. In those users who eventually acquire EEG control, early target-related EMG contamination may be most prominent for unsuccessful trials, and may reflect user frustration. In those users who never acquire EEG control, EMG may initially serve to move the cursor toward the target. Careful and comprehensive topographical and spectral analyses throughout user training are essential for detecting EMG contamination and differentiating between cursor control provided by EEG control and cursor control provided by EMG contamination. SIGNIFICANCE: Artifacts such as EMG are common in EEG recordings. Comprehensive spectral and topographical analyses are necessary to detect them and ensure that they do not masquerade as, or interfere with acquisition of, actual EEG-based cursor control.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

The BCI Competition 2003: progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials.

Interest in developing a new method of man-to-machine communication--a brain-computer interface (BCI)--has grown steadily over the past few decades. BCIs create a new communication channel between the brain and an output device by bypassing conventional motor output pathways of nerves and muscles. These systems use signals recorded from the scalp, the surface of the cortex, or from inside the brain to enable users to control a variety of applications including simple word-processing software and orthotics. BCI technology could therefore provide a new communication and control option for individuals who cannot otherwise express their wishes to the outside world. Signal processing and classification methods are essential tools in the development of improved BCI technology. We organized the BCI Competition 2003 to evaluate the current state of the art of these tools. Four laboratories well versed in EEG-based BCI research provided six data sets in a documented format. We made these data sets (i.e., labeled training sets and unlabeled test sets) and their descriptions available on the Internet. The goal in the competition was to maximize the performance measure for the test labels. Researchers worldwide tested their algorithms and competed for the best classification results. This paper describes the six data sets and the results and function of the most successful algorithms.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

The Wadsworth Center brain-computer interface (BCI) research and development program.

Brain-computer interface (BCI) research at the Wadsworth Center has focused primarily on using electroencephalogram (EEG) rhythms recorded from the scalp over sensorimotor cortex to control cursor movement in one or two dimensions. Recent and current studies seek to improve the speed and accuracy of this control by improving the selection of signal features and their translation into device commands, by incorporating additional signal features, and by optimizing the adaptive interaction between the user and system. In addition, to facilitate the evaluation, comparison, and combination of alternative BCI methods, we have developed a general-purpose BCI system called BCI-2000 and have made it available to other research groups. Finally, in collaboration with several other groups, we are developing simple BCI applications and are testing their practicality and long-term value for people with severe motor disabilities.

Academic Medical Centers↗

PubMed2003

Brain-computer interface technology: a review of the Second International Meeting.

This paper summarizes the Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control, The Second International Meeting, held in Rensselaerville, NY, in June 2002. Sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and organized by the Wadsworth Center of the New York State Department of Health, the meeting addressed current work and future plans in brain-computer interface (BCI) research. Ninety-two researchers representing 38 different research groups from the United States, Canada, Europe, and China participated. The BCIs discussed at the meeting use electroencephalographic activity recorded from the scalp or single-neuron activity recorded within cortex to control cursor movement, select letters or icons, or operate neuroprostheses. The central element in each BCI is a translation algorithm that converts electrophysiological input from the user into output that controls external devices. BCI operation depends on effective interaction between two adaptive controllers, the user who encodes his or her commands in the electrophysiological input provided to the BCI, and the BCI that recognizes the commands contained in the input and expresses them in device control. Current BCIs have maximum information transfer rates of up to 25 b/min. Achievement of greater speed and accuracy requires improvements in signal acquisition and processing, in translation algorithms, and in user training. These improvements depend on interdisciplinary cooperation among neuroscientists, engineers, computer programmers, psychologists, and rehabilitation specialists, and on adoption and widespread application of objective criteria for evaluating alternative methods. The practical use of BCI technology will be determined by the development of appropriate applications and identification of appropriate user groups, and will require careful attention to the needs and desires of individual users.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2002

Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control.

For many years people have speculated that electroencephalographic activity or other electrophysiological measures of brain function might provide a new non-muscular channel for sending messages and commands to the external world - a brain-computer interface (BCI). Over the past 15 years, productive BCI research programs have arisen. Encouraged by new understanding of brain function, by the advent of powerful low-cost computer equipment, and by growing recognition of the needs and potentials of people with disabilities, these programs concentrate on developing new augmentative communication and control technology for those with severe neuromuscular disorders, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, brainstem stroke, and spinal cord injury. The immediate goal is to provide these users, who may be completely paralyzed, or 'locked in', with basic communication capabilities so that they can express their wishes to caregivers or even operate word processing programs or neuroprostheses. Present-day BCIs determine the intent of the user from a variety of different electrophysiological signals. These signals include slow cortical potentials, P300 potentials, and mu or beta rhythms recorded from the scalp, and cortical neuronal activity recorded by implanted electrodes. They are translated in real-time into commands that operate a computer display or other device. Successful operation requires that the user encode commands in these signals and that the BCI derive the commands from the signals. Thus, the user and the BCI system need to adapt to each other both initially and continually so as to ensure stable performance. Current BCIs have maximum information transfer rates up to 10-25bits/min. This limited capacity can be valuable for people whose severe disabilities prevent them from using conventional augmentative communication methods. At the same time, many possible applications of BCI technology, such as neuroprosthesis control, may require higher information transfer rates. Future progress will depend on: recognition that BCI research and development is an interdisciplinary problem, involving neurobiology, psychology, engineering, mathematics, and computer science; identification of those signals, whether evoked potentials, spontaneous rhythms, or neuronal firing rates, that users are best able to control independent of activity in conventional motor output pathways; development of training methods for helping users to gain and maintain that control; delineation of the best algorithms for translating these signals into device commands; attention to the identification and elimination of artifacts such as electromyographic and electro-oculographic activity; adoption of precise and objective procedures for evaluating BCI performance; recognition of the need for long-term as well as short-term assessment of BCI performance; identification of appropriate BCI applications and appropriate matching of applications and users; and attention to factors that affect user acceptance of augmentative technology, including ease of use, cosmesis, and provision of those communication and control capacities that are most important to the user. Development of BCI technology will also benefit from greater emphasis on peer-reviewed research publications and avoidance of the hyperbolic and often misleading media attention that tends to generate unrealistic expectations in the public and skepticism in other researchers. With adequate recognition and effective engagement of all these issues, BCI systems could eventually provide an important new communication and control option for those with motor disabilities and might also give those without disabilities a supplementary control channel or a control channel useful in special circumstances.

Brain Diseases↗