00969nas a2200193   4500008004100000022001400041245007600055210006900131260000800200300001100208490000700219520037900226100002600605700002500631700002600656700002400682700002100706856004800727       2017                        eng d  a1741-255200aPrediction of subjective ratings of emotional pictures by EEG features.0 aPrediction of subjective ratings of emotional pictures by EEG fe  cFeb  a0160090 v143 aEmotion dysregulation is an important aspect of many psychiatric disorders. Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology could be a powerful new approach to facilitating therapeutic self-regulation of emotions. One possible BCI method would be to provide stimulus-specific feedback based on subject-specific electroencephalographic (EEG) responses to emotion-eliciting stimuli.1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aParvaz, Muhammad, A.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aGoldstein, Rita, Z.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2793477600997nas a2200181   4500008004100000022001400041245008500055210006900140260000800209300001100217490000700228520043500235653002400670100002600694700002600720700002100746856004800767       2015                        eng d  a1741-255200aEffects of training pre-movement sensorimotor rhythms on behavioral performance.0 aEffects of training premovement sensorimotor rhythms on behavior  cDec  a0660210 v123 aBrain-computer interface (BCI) technology might contribute to rehabilitation of motor function. This speculation is based on the premise that modifying the electroencephalographic (EEG) activity will modify behavior, a proposition for which there is limited empirical data. The present study asked whether learned modulation of pre-movement sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) activity can affect motor performance in normal human subjects.10asensorimotor cortex1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2652911902447nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245007700055210006700132260001200199300001400211490000800225520176000233653002901993653002002022653000902042100002602051700002602077700002102103700002402124700002102148856004802169       2011                        eng d  a1872-895200aThe P300-based brain-computer interface (BCI): effects of stimulus rate.0 aP300based braincomputer interface BCI effects of stimulus rate  c04/2011  a731–7370 v1223 aOBJECTIVE:
Brain-computer interface technology can restore communication and control to people who are severely paralyzed. We have developed a non-invasive BCI based on the P300 event-related potential that uses an 8×9 matrix of 72 items that flash in groups of 6. Stimulus presentation rate (i.e., flash rate) is one of several parameters that could affect the speed and accuracy of performance. We studied performance (i.e., accuracy and characters/min) on copy spelling as a function of flash rate.
METHODS:
In the first study of six BCI users, stimulus-on and stimulus-off times were equal and flash rate was 4, 8, 16, or 32 Hz. In the second study of five BCI users, flash rate was varied by changing either the stimulus-on or stimulus-off time.
RESULTS:
For all users, lower flash rates gave higher accuracy. The flash rate that gave the highest characters/min varied across users, ranging from 8 to 32 Hz. However, variations in stimulus-on and stimulus-off times did not themselves significantly affect accuracy. Providing feedback did not affect results in either study suggesting that offline analyses should readily generalize to online performance. However there do appear to be session-specific effects that can influence the generalizability of classifier results.
CONCLUSIONS:
The results show that stimulus presentation (i.e., flash) rate affects the accuracy and speed of P300 BCI performance.
SIGNIFICANCE:
These results extend the range over which slower flash rates increase the amplitude of the P300. Considering also presentation time, the optimal rate differs among users, and thus should be set empirically for each user. Optimal flash rate might also vary with other parameters such as the number of items in the matrix.10abrain-computer interface10aneuroprosthesis10aP3001 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aTownsend, George1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2106797001319nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245008200055210006900137260001200206300001400218490000800232520070000240653001500940653002900955653000800984100002600992700002601018700002101044856004801065       2011                        eng d  a1872-678X00aShould the parameters of a BCI translation algorithm be continually adapted?.0 aShould the parameters of a BCI translation algorithm be continua  c07/2011  a103–1070 v1993 aPeople with or without motor disabilities can learn to control sensorimotor rhythms (SMRs) recorded from the scalp to move a computer cursor in one or more dimensions or can use the P300 event-related potential as a control signal to make discrete selections. Data collected from individuals using an SMR-based or P300-based BCI were evaluated offline to estimate the impact on performance of continually adapting the parameters of the translation algorithm during BCI operation. The performance of the SMR-based BCI was enhanced by adaptive updating of the feature weights or adaptive normalization of the features. In contrast, P300 performance did not benefit from either of these procedures.10aadaptation10abrain-computer interface10aEEG1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2157100401515nas a2200181   4500008004100000022001400041245007300055210006900128260001200197300001100209490000600220520095800226653002801184100002601212700002601238700002101264856004801285       2010                        eng d  a1741-255200aElectroencephalographic (EEG) control of three-dimensional movement.0 aElectroencephalographic EEG control of threedimensional movement  c06/2010  a0360070 v73 aBrain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can use brain signals from the scalp (EEG), the cortical surface (ECoG), or within the cortex to restore movement control to people who are paralyzed. Like muscle-based skills, BCIs' use requires activity-dependent adaptations in the brain that maintain stable relationships between the person's intent and the signals that convey it. This study shows that humans can learn over a series of training sessions to use EEG for three-dimensional control. The responsible EEG features are focused topographically on the scalp and spectrally in specific frequency bands. People acquire simultaneous control of three independent signals (one for each dimension) and reach targets in a virtual three-dimensional space. Such BCI control in humans has not been reported previously. The results suggest that with further development noninvasive EEG-based BCIs might control the complex movements of robotic arms or neuroprostheses.10aUser-Computer Interface1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2046069001945nas a2200193   4500008004100000022001400041245008500055210006900140260001200209300001400221490000600235520133600241653002801577100002601605700002501631700002601656700002101682856004801703       2008                        eng d  a1741-256000aEmulation of computer mouse control with a noninvasive brain-computer interface.0 aEmulation of computer mouse control with a noninvasive braincomp  c06/2008  a101–1100 v53 aBrain-computer interface (BCI) technology can provide nonmuscular communication and control to people who are severely paralyzed. BCIs can use noninvasive or invasive techniques for recording the brain signals that convey the user's commands. Although noninvasive BCIs are used for simple applications, it has frequently been assumed that only invasive BCIs, which use electrodes implanted in the brain, will be able to provide multidimensional sequential control of a robotic arm or a neuroprosthesis. The present study shows that a noninvasive BCI using scalp-recorded electroencephalographic (EEG) activity and an adaptive algorithm can provide people, including people with spinal cord injuries, with two-dimensional cursor movement and target selection. Multiple targets were presented around the periphery of a computer screen, with one designated as the correct target. The user's task was to use EEG to move a cursor from the center of the screen to the correct target and then to use an additional EEG feature to select the target. If the cursor reached an incorrect target, the user was instructed not to select it. Thus, this task emulated the key features of mouse operation. The results indicate that people with severe motor disabilities could use brain signals for sequential multidimensional movement and selection.10aUser-Computer Interface1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aKrusienski, Dean, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1836777903537nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245009500055210006900150260001200219300001200231490000800243520277200251653002903023653000803052653002703060653001303087653001403100653002403114100002603138700002603164700002403190700002103214856004803235       2005                        eng d  a1388-245700aBrain-computer interface (BCI) operation: signal and noise during early training sessions.0 aBraincomputer interface BCI operation signal and noise during ea  c01/2005  a56–620 v1163 aOBJECTIVE:
People can learn to control mu (8-12 Hz) or beta (18-25 Hz) rhythm amplitude in the electroencephalogram (EEG) recorded over sensorimotor cortex and use it to move a cursor to a target on a video screen. The recorded signal may also contain electromyogram (EMG) and other non-EEG artifacts. This study examines the presence and characteristics of EMG contamination during new users' initial brain-computer interface (BCI) training sessions, as they first attempt to acquire control over mu or beta rhythm amplitude and to use that control to move a cursor to a target.
METHODS:
In the standard one-dimensional format, a target appears along the right edge of the screen and 1s later the cursor appears in the middle of the left edge and moves across the screen at a fixed rate with its vertical movement controlled by a linear function of mu or beta rhythm amplitude. In the basic two-choice version, the target occupies the upper or lower half of the right edge. The user's task is to move the cursor vertically so that it hits the target when it reaches the right edge. The present data comprise the first 10 sessions of BCI training from each of 7 users. Their data were selected to illustrate the variations seen in EMG contamination across users.
RESULTS:
Five of the 7 users learned to change rhythm amplitude appropriately, so that the cursor hit the target. Three of these 5 showed no evidence of EMG contamination. In the other two of these 5, EMG was prominent in early sessions, and tended to be associated with errors rather than with hits. As EEG control improved over the 10 sessions, this EMG contamination disappeared. In the remaining two users, who never acquired actual EEG control, EMG was prominent in initial sessions and tended to move the cursor to the target. This EMG contamination was still detectable by Session 10.
CONCLUSIONS:
EMG contamination arising from cranial muscles is often present early in BCI training and gradually wanes. In those users who eventually acquire EEG control, early target-related EMG contamination may be most prominent for unsuccessful trials, and may reflect user frustration. In those users who never acquire EEG control, EMG may initially serve to move the cursor toward the target. Careful and comprehensive topographical and spectral analyses throughout user training are essential for detecting EMG contamination and differentiating between cursor control provided by EEG control and cursor control provided by EMG contamination.
SIGNIFICANCE:
Artifacts such as EMG are common in EEG recordings. Comprehensive spectral and topographical analyses are necessary to detect them and ensure that they do not masquerade as, or interfere with acquisition of, actual EEG-based cursor control.10abrain-computer interface10aEEG10aElectroencephalography10aLearning10amu rhythm10asensorimotor cortex1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1558918402522nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245008500055210006900140260001200209300001400221490000700235520169700242653003101939653002701970653001601997653001302013653001402026653002502040653001502065653001902080653002402099100002602123700002602149700002102175856004802196       2003                        eng d  a0301-051100aBrain-computer interface (BCI) operation: optimizing information transfer rates.0 aBraincomputer interface BCI operation optimizing information tra  c07/2003  a237–2510 v633 aPeople can learn to control mu (8-12 Hz) or beta (18-25 Hz) rhythm amplitude in the EEG recorded over sensorimotor cortex and use it to move a cursor to a target on a video screen. In the present version of the cursor movement task, vertical cursor movement is a linear function of mu or beta rhythm amplitude. At the same time the cursor moves horizontally from left to right at a fixed rate. A target occupies 50% (2-target task) to 20% (5-target task) of the right edge of the screen. The user's task is to move the cursor vertically so that it hits the target when it reaches the right edge. The goal of the present study was to optimize system performance. To accomplish this, we evaluated the impact on system performance of number of targets (i.e. 2-5) and trial duration (i.e. horizontal movement time from 1 to 4 s). Performance was measured as accuracy (percent of targets selected correctly) and also as bit rate (bits/min) (which incorporates, in addition to accuracy, speed and the number of possible targets). Accuracy declined as target number increased. At the same time, for six of eight users, four targets yielded the maximum bit rate. Accuracy increased as movement time increased. At the same time, the movement time with the highest bit rate varied across users from 2 to 4 s. These results indicate that task parameters such as target number and trial duration can markedly affect system performance. They also indicate that optimal parameter values vary across users. Selection of parameters suited both to the specific user and the requirements of the specific application is likely to be a key factor in maximizing the success of EEG-based communication and control.10aaugmentative communication10aElectroencephalography10ainformation10aLearning10amu rhythm10aoperant conditioning10aprosthesis10aRehabilitation10asensorimotor cortex1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1285316901629nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245010300055210006900158260001200227300001200239490000800251520078600259653003101045653002901076653002801105653002701133653002401160653002001184653001901204100001901223700002601242700002601268700002101294856004801315       2003                        eng d  a0304-394000aElectroencephalographic(EEG)-based communication: EEG control versus system performance in humans.0 aElectroencephalographicEEGbased communication EEG control versus  c07/2002  a89–920 v3453 aPeople can learn to control electroencephalographic (EEG) sensorimotor rhythm amplitude so as to move a cursor to select among choices on a computer screen. We explored the dependence of system performance on EEG control. Users moved the cursor to reach a target at one of four possible locations. EEG control was measured as the correlation (r(2)) between rhythm amplitude and target location. Performance was measured as accuracy (% of targets hit) and as information transfer rate (bits/trial). The relationship between EEG control and accuracy can be approximated by a linear function that is constant for all users. The results facilitate offline predictions of the effects on performance of using different EEG features or combinations of features to control cursor movement.10aaugmentative communication10abrain-computer interface10abrain-machine interface10aElectroencephalography10amu and beta rhythms10aneuroprosthesis10aRehabilitation1 aSheikh, Hesham1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12821178