Cargando…
Solving the SSVEP Paradigm Using the Nonlinear Canonical Correlation Analysis Approach
This paper presents the implementation of nonlinear canonical correlation analysis (NLCCA) approach to detect steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEP) quickly. The need for the fast recognition of proper stimulus to help end an SSVEP task in a BCI system is justified due to the flickering exter...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8439358/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34450750 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21165308 |
Sumario: | This paper presents the implementation of nonlinear canonical correlation analysis (NLCCA) approach to detect steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEP) quickly. The need for the fast recognition of proper stimulus to help end an SSVEP task in a BCI system is justified due to the flickering external stimulus exposure that causes users to start to feel fatigued. Measuring the accuracy and exposure time can be carried out through the information transfer rate—ITR, which is defined as a relationship between the precision, the number of stimuli, and the required time to obtain a result. NLCCA performance was evaluated by comparing it with two other approaches—the well-known canonical correlation analysis (CCA) and the least absolute reduction and selection operator (LASSO), both commonly used to solve the SSVEP paradigm. First, the best average ITR value was found from a dataset comprising ten healthy users with an average age of 28, where an exposure time of one second was obtained. In addition, the time sliding window responses were observed immediately after and around 200 ms after the flickering exposure to obtain the phase effects through the coefficient of variation (CV), where NLCCA obtained the lowest value. Finally, in order to obtain statistical significance to demonstrate that all approaches differ, the accuracy and ITR from the time sliding window responses was compared using a statistical analysis of variance per approach to identify differences between them using Tukey’s test. |
---|