02522nas 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