Cargando…

Asynchronous c-VEP communication tools—efficiency comparison of low-target, multi-target and dictionary-assisted BCI spellers

Keyboards and smartphones allow users to express their thoughts freely via manual control. Hands-free communication can be realized with brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) based on code-modulated visual evoked potentials (c-VEPs). Various variations of such spellers have been developed: Low-target sys...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gembler, Felix W., Benda, Mihaly, Rezeika, Aya, Stawicki, Piotr R., Volosyak, Ivan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7553931/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33051500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74143-4
_version_ 1783593706132078592
author Gembler, Felix W.
Benda, Mihaly
Rezeika, Aya
Stawicki, Piotr R.
Volosyak, Ivan
author_facet Gembler, Felix W.
Benda, Mihaly
Rezeika, Aya
Stawicki, Piotr R.
Volosyak, Ivan
author_sort Gembler, Felix W.
collection PubMed
description Keyboards and smartphones allow users to express their thoughts freely via manual control. Hands-free communication can be realized with brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) based on code-modulated visual evoked potentials (c-VEPs). Various variations of such spellers have been developed: Low-target systems, multi-target systems and systems with dictionary support. In general, it is not clear which kinds of systems are optimal in terms of reliability, speed, cognitive load, and visual load. The presented study investigates the feasibility of different speller variations. 58 users tested a 4-target speller and a 32-target speller with and without dictionary functionality. For classification, multiple individualized spatial filters were generated via canonical correlation analysis (CCA). We used an asynchronous implementation allowing non-control state, thus aiming for high accuracy rather than speed. All users were able to control the tested spellers. Interestingly, no significant differences in accuracy were found: 94.4%, 95.5% and 94.0% for 4-target spelling, 32-target spelling, and dictionary-assisted 32-target spelling. The mean ITRs were highest for the 32-target interface: 45.2, 96.9 and 88.9 bit/min. The output speed in characters per minute, was highest in dictionary-assisted spelling: 8.2, 19.5 and 31.6 characters/min. According to questionnaire results, 86% of the participants preferred the 32-target speller over the 4-target speller.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7553931
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75539312020-10-14 Asynchronous c-VEP communication tools—efficiency comparison of low-target, multi-target and dictionary-assisted BCI spellers Gembler, Felix W. Benda, Mihaly Rezeika, Aya Stawicki, Piotr R. Volosyak, Ivan Sci Rep Article Keyboards and smartphones allow users to express their thoughts freely via manual control. Hands-free communication can be realized with brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) based on code-modulated visual evoked potentials (c-VEPs). Various variations of such spellers have been developed: Low-target systems, multi-target systems and systems with dictionary support. In general, it is not clear which kinds of systems are optimal in terms of reliability, speed, cognitive load, and visual load. The presented study investigates the feasibility of different speller variations. 58 users tested a 4-target speller and a 32-target speller with and without dictionary functionality. For classification, multiple individualized spatial filters were generated via canonical correlation analysis (CCA). We used an asynchronous implementation allowing non-control state, thus aiming for high accuracy rather than speed. All users were able to control the tested spellers. Interestingly, no significant differences in accuracy were found: 94.4%, 95.5% and 94.0% for 4-target spelling, 32-target spelling, and dictionary-assisted 32-target spelling. The mean ITRs were highest for the 32-target interface: 45.2, 96.9 and 88.9 bit/min. The output speed in characters per minute, was highest in dictionary-assisted spelling: 8.2, 19.5 and 31.6 characters/min. According to questionnaire results, 86% of the participants preferred the 32-target speller over the 4-target speller. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7553931/ /pubmed/33051500 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74143-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Gembler, Felix W.
Benda, Mihaly
Rezeika, Aya
Stawicki, Piotr R.
Volosyak, Ivan
Asynchronous c-VEP communication tools—efficiency comparison of low-target, multi-target and dictionary-assisted BCI spellers
title Asynchronous c-VEP communication tools—efficiency comparison of low-target, multi-target and dictionary-assisted BCI spellers
title_full Asynchronous c-VEP communication tools—efficiency comparison of low-target, multi-target and dictionary-assisted BCI spellers
title_fullStr Asynchronous c-VEP communication tools—efficiency comparison of low-target, multi-target and dictionary-assisted BCI spellers
title_full_unstemmed Asynchronous c-VEP communication tools—efficiency comparison of low-target, multi-target and dictionary-assisted BCI spellers
title_short Asynchronous c-VEP communication tools—efficiency comparison of low-target, multi-target and dictionary-assisted BCI spellers
title_sort asynchronous c-vep communication tools—efficiency comparison of low-target, multi-target and dictionary-assisted bci spellers
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7553931/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33051500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74143-4
work_keys_str_mv AT gemblerfelixw asynchronouscvepcommunicationtoolsefficiencycomparisonoflowtargetmultitargetanddictionaryassistedbcispellers
AT bendamihaly asynchronouscvepcommunicationtoolsefficiencycomparisonoflowtargetmultitargetanddictionaryassistedbcispellers
AT rezeikaaya asynchronouscvepcommunicationtoolsefficiencycomparisonoflowtargetmultitargetanddictionaryassistedbcispellers
AT stawickipiotrr asynchronouscvepcommunicationtoolsefficiencycomparisonoflowtargetmultitargetanddictionaryassistedbcispellers
AT volosyakivan asynchronouscvepcommunicationtoolsefficiencycomparisonoflowtargetmultitargetanddictionaryassistedbcispellers