4.6 Article

Comparing tactile and visual gaze-independent brain-computer interfaces in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and healthy users

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 125, 期 11, 页码 2297-2304

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.03.005

关键词

Somatosensory evoked potentials; Visual evoked potentials; BCI; EEG; Attention; ALS

资金

  1. Brain-Gain Smart Mix Programme of the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs
  2. Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) tested in patients often are gaze-dependent, while these intended users could possibly lose the ability to focus their gaze. Therefore, a visual and a tactile gaze-independent spelling system were investigated. Methods: Five patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) tested a visual Hex-o-Spell and a tactile speller. Six healthy participants were also included, mainly to evaluate the tactile stimulators. Results: A significant attentional modulation was seen in the P300 for the Hex-o-Spell and in the N2 for the tactile speller. Average on-line classification performance for selecting a step in the speller was above chance level (17%) for both spellers. However, average performance was higher for the Hex-o-Spell (88% and 85% for healthy participants and patients, respectively) than for the tactile speller (56% and 53%, respectively). Likewise, bitrates were higher for the Hex-o-Spell compared with the tactile speller, and in the subjective usability a preference for the Hex-o-Spell was found. Conclusions: The Hex-o-Spell outperformed the tactile speller in classification performance, bit rate and subjective usability. Significance: This is the first study showing the possible use of tactile and visual gaze-independent BCI spelling systems by ALS patients with mild to moderate disabilities. (C) 2014 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