Cargando…
Comparison of Different Visual Feedback Methods for SSVEP-Based BCIs
In this paper we compared different visual feedback methods, informing users about classification progress in a steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based brain–computer interface (BCI) speller application. According to results from our previous studies, changes in stimulus size and contrast...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7226383/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32325633 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10040240 |
_version_ | 1783534274598666240 |
---|---|
author | Benda, Mihaly Volosyak, Ivan |
author_facet | Benda, Mihaly Volosyak, Ivan |
author_sort | Benda, Mihaly |
collection | PubMed |
description | In this paper we compared different visual feedback methods, informing users about classification progress in a steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based brain–computer interface (BCI) speller application. According to results from our previous studies, changes in stimulus size and contrast as online feedback of classification progress have great impact on BCI performance in SSVEP-based spellers. In this experiment we further investigated these effects, and tested a 4-target SSVEP speller interface with a much higher number of subjects. Five different scenarios were used with variations in stimulus size and contrast, “no feedback”, “size increasing”, “size decreasing”, “contrast increasing”, and “contrast decreasing”. With each of the five scenarios, 24 participants had to spell six letter words (at least 18 selections with this three-steps speller). The fastest feedback modalities were different for the users, there was no visual feedback which was generally better than the others. With the used interface, six users achieved significantly better Information Transfer Rates (ITRs) compared to the “no feedback” condition. Their average improvement by using the individually fastest feedback method was 46.52%. This finding is very important for BCI experiments, as by determining the optimal feedback for the user, the speed of the BCI can be improved without impairing the accuracy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7226383 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72263832020-05-18 Comparison of Different Visual Feedback Methods for SSVEP-Based BCIs Benda, Mihaly Volosyak, Ivan Brain Sci Article In this paper we compared different visual feedback methods, informing users about classification progress in a steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based brain–computer interface (BCI) speller application. According to results from our previous studies, changes in stimulus size and contrast as online feedback of classification progress have great impact on BCI performance in SSVEP-based spellers. In this experiment we further investigated these effects, and tested a 4-target SSVEP speller interface with a much higher number of subjects. Five different scenarios were used with variations in stimulus size and contrast, “no feedback”, “size increasing”, “size decreasing”, “contrast increasing”, and “contrast decreasing”. With each of the five scenarios, 24 participants had to spell six letter words (at least 18 selections with this three-steps speller). The fastest feedback modalities were different for the users, there was no visual feedback which was generally better than the others. With the used interface, six users achieved significantly better Information Transfer Rates (ITRs) compared to the “no feedback” condition. Their average improvement by using the individually fastest feedback method was 46.52%. This finding is very important for BCI experiments, as by determining the optimal feedback for the user, the speed of the BCI can be improved without impairing the accuracy. MDPI 2020-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7226383/ /pubmed/32325633 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10040240 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Benda, Mihaly Volosyak, Ivan Comparison of Different Visual Feedback Methods for SSVEP-Based BCIs |
title | Comparison of Different Visual Feedback Methods for SSVEP-Based BCIs |
title_full | Comparison of Different Visual Feedback Methods for SSVEP-Based BCIs |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Different Visual Feedback Methods for SSVEP-Based BCIs |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Different Visual Feedback Methods for SSVEP-Based BCIs |
title_short | Comparison of Different Visual Feedback Methods for SSVEP-Based BCIs |
title_sort | comparison of different visual feedback methods for ssvep-based bcis |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7226383/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32325633 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10040240 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bendamihaly comparisonofdifferentvisualfeedbackmethodsforssvepbasedbcis AT volosyakivan comparisonofdifferentvisualfeedbackmethodsforssvepbasedbcis |