Cargando…

Comparison of eye tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state

BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluated electrooculography (EOG), an eye tracker and an auditory brain-computer interface (BCI) as access methods to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). The participant of the study has been in the locked-in state (LIS) for 6 years due to amyotrophic lat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Käthner, Ivo, Kübler, Andrea, Halder, Sebastian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4560087/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26338101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0071-z
_version_ 1782388874377428992
author Käthner, Ivo
Kübler, Andrea
Halder, Sebastian
author_facet Käthner, Ivo
Kübler, Andrea
Halder, Sebastian
author_sort Käthner, Ivo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluated electrooculography (EOG), an eye tracker and an auditory brain-computer interface (BCI) as access methods to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). The participant of the study has been in the locked-in state (LIS) for 6 years due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. He was able to communicate with slow residual eye movements, but had no means of partner independent communication. We discuss the usability of all tested access methods and the prospects of using BCIs as an assistive technology. METHODS: Within four days, we tested whether EOG, eye tracking and a BCI would allow the participant in LIS to make simple selections. We optimized the parameters in an iterative procedure for all systems. RESULTS: The participant was able to gain control over all three systems. Nonetheless, due to the level of proficiency previously achieved with his low-tech AAC method, he did not consider using any of the tested systems as an additional communication channel. However, he would consider using the BCI once control over his eye muscles would no longer be possible. He rated the ease of use of the BCI as the highest among the tested systems, because no precise eye movements were required; but also as the most tiring, due to the high level of attention needed to operate the BCI. CONCLUSIONS: In this case study, the partner based communication was possible due to the good care provided and the proficiency achieved by the interlocutors. To ease the transition from a low-tech AAC method to a BCI once control over all muscles is lost, it must be simple to operate. For persons, who rely on AAC and are affected by a progressive neuromuscular disease, we argue that a complementary approach, combining BCIs and standard assistive technology, can prove valuable to achieve partner independent communication and ease the transition to a purely BCI based approach. Finally, we provide further evidence for the importance of a user-centered approach in the design of new assistive devices. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12984-015-0071-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4560087
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45600872015-09-05 Comparison of eye tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state Käthner, Ivo Kübler, Andrea Halder, Sebastian J Neuroeng Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluated electrooculography (EOG), an eye tracker and an auditory brain-computer interface (BCI) as access methods to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). The participant of the study has been in the locked-in state (LIS) for 6 years due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. He was able to communicate with slow residual eye movements, but had no means of partner independent communication. We discuss the usability of all tested access methods and the prospects of using BCIs as an assistive technology. METHODS: Within four days, we tested whether EOG, eye tracking and a BCI would allow the participant in LIS to make simple selections. We optimized the parameters in an iterative procedure for all systems. RESULTS: The participant was able to gain control over all three systems. Nonetheless, due to the level of proficiency previously achieved with his low-tech AAC method, he did not consider using any of the tested systems as an additional communication channel. However, he would consider using the BCI once control over his eye muscles would no longer be possible. He rated the ease of use of the BCI as the highest among the tested systems, because no precise eye movements were required; but also as the most tiring, due to the high level of attention needed to operate the BCI. CONCLUSIONS: In this case study, the partner based communication was possible due to the good care provided and the proficiency achieved by the interlocutors. To ease the transition from a low-tech AAC method to a BCI once control over all muscles is lost, it must be simple to operate. For persons, who rely on AAC and are affected by a progressive neuromuscular disease, we argue that a complementary approach, combining BCIs and standard assistive technology, can prove valuable to achieve partner independent communication and ease the transition to a purely BCI based approach. Finally, we provide further evidence for the importance of a user-centered approach in the design of new assistive devices. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12984-015-0071-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4560087/ /pubmed/26338101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0071-z Text en © Käthner et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Käthner, Ivo
Kübler, Andrea
Halder, Sebastian
Comparison of eye tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state
title Comparison of eye tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state
title_full Comparison of eye tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state
title_fullStr Comparison of eye tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of eye tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state
title_short Comparison of eye tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state
title_sort comparison of eye tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4560087/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26338101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0071-z
work_keys_str_mv AT kathnerivo comparisonofeyetrackingelectrooculographyandanauditorybraincomputerinterfaceforbinarycommunicationacasestudywithaparticipantinthelockedinstate
AT kublerandrea comparisonofeyetrackingelectrooculographyandanauditorybraincomputerinterfaceforbinarycommunicationacasestudywithaparticipantinthelockedinstate
AT haldersebastian comparisonofeyetrackingelectrooculographyandanauditorybraincomputerinterfaceforbinarycommunicationacasestudywithaparticipantinthelockedinstate