4.6 Article

An auditory oddball brain-computer interface for binary choices

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 121, 期 4, 页码 516-523

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.11.087

关键词

EEG; BCI; ERP; P300; Oddball; Auditory

资金

  1. DFG [KU 1453/3-1]
  2. European ICT [FP7-224631]
  3. SFB [550/B5, C6]
  4. BMBF (Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung) Bernstein Center for Neurocomputation) [01GQ0831]
  5. European Research Council [227632-BCCI]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) provide non-muscular communication for individuals diagnosed with late-stage motoneuron disease (e. g., amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)). In the final stages of the disease, a BCI cannot rely on the visual modality. This study examined a method to achieve high accuracies using auditory stimuli only. Methods: We propose an auditory BCI based on a three-stimulus paradigm. This paradigm is similar to the standard oddball but includes an additional target (i.e. two target stimuli, one frequent stimulus). Three versions of the task were evaluated in which the target stimuli differed in loudness, pitch or direction. Results: Twenty healthy participants achieved an average information transfer rate (ITR) of up to 2.46 bits/min and accuracies of 78.5%. Most subjects (14 of 20) achieved their best performance with targets differing in pitch. Conclusions: With this study, the viability of the paradigm was shown for healthy participants and will next be evaluated with individuals diagnosed with ALS or locked-in syndrome (LIS) after stroke. Significance: The here presented BCI offers communication with binary choices (yes/no) independent of vision. As it requires only little time per selection, it may constitute a reliable means of communication for patients who lost all motor function and have a short attention span. (C) 2009 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据