3.8 Article

Automated artifact rejection algorithms harm P3 Speller brain-computer interface performance

Journal

BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACES
Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages 141-148

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/2326263X.2020.1734401

Keywords

Brain-computer interfaces; P300 Speller; artifacts rejection; physiological signals; signal processing

Funding

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R21HD054697]
  2. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) in the Department of Education [H133G090005, H133P090008]
  3. National Science Foundation (NSF) [DGE0718128]
  4. Kansas State University (KSU)
  5. K-State Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
  6. NSF [1910526]
  7. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  8. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems [1910526] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) have been used to restore communication and control to people with severe paralysis. However, noninvasive BCIs based on electroencephalogram (EEG) are particularly vulnerable to noise artifacts. These artifacts, including electro-oculogram (EOG), can be orders of magnitude larger than the signal to be detected. Many automated methods have been proposed to remove EOG and other artifacts from EEG recordings, most based on blind source separation. This work presents a performance comparison of ten different automated artifact removal methods. Unfortunately, all tested methods substantially and significantly reduced P3 Speller BCI performance, and all methods were more likely to reduce performance than increase it. The least harmful methods were titled SOBI, JADER, and EFICA, but even these methods caused an average of approximately ten percentage points drop in BCI accuracy. Possible mechanistic causes for this empirical performance reduction are proposed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available