No abstract

The BCI competition IV stands in the tradition of prior BCI competitions that aim to provide high quality neuroscientific data for open access to the scientific community. As experienced already in prior competitions not only scientists from the narrow field of BCI compete, but scholars with a broad variety of backgrounds and nationalities. They include high specialists as well as students. The goals of all BCI competitions have always been to challenge with respect to novel paradigms and complex data. We report on the following challenges: (1) asynchronous data, (2) synthetic, (3) multi-class continuous data, (4) session-to-session transfer, (5) directionally modulated MEG, (6) finger movements recorded by ECoG. As after past competitions, our hope is that winning entries may enhance the analysis methods of future BCIs.

Nowadays, everybody knows what a hybrid car is. A hybrid car normally has two engines to enhance energy efficiency and reduce CO2 output. Similarly, a hybrid brain-computer interface (BCI) is composed of two BCIs, or at least one BCI and another system. A hybrid BCI, like any BCI, must fulfill the following four criteria: (i) the device must rely on signals recorded directly from the brain; (ii) there must be at least one recordable brain signal that the user can intentionally modulate to effect goal-directed behaviour; (iii) real time processing; and (iv) the user must obtain feedback. This paper introduces hybrid BCIs that have already been published or are in development. We also introduce concepts for future work. We describe BCIs that classify two EEG patterns: one is the event-related (de)synchronisation (ERD, ERS) of sensorimotor rhythms, and the other is the steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP). Hybrid BCIs can either process their inputs simultaneously, or operate two systems sequentially, where the first system can act as a “brain switch”. For example, we describe a hybrid BCI that simultaneously combines ERD and SSVEP BCIs. We also describe a sequential hybrid BCI, in which subjects could use a brain switch to control an SSVEP-based hand orthosis. Subjects who used this hybrid BCI exhibited about half the false positives encountered while using the SSVEP BCI alone. A brain switch can also rely on hemodynamic changes measured through near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). Hybrid BCIs can also use one brain signal and a different type of input. This additional input can be an electrophysiological signal such as the heart rate, or a signal from an external device such as an eye tracking system.

This document provides a review of the techniques and therapies used in gait rehabilitation after stroke. It also examines the possible benefits of including assistive robotic devices and brain-computer interfaces in this field, according to a top-down approach, in which rehabilitation is driven by neural plasticity.The methods reviewed comprise classical gait rehabilitation techniques (neurophysiological and motor learning approaches), functional electrical stimulation (FES), robotic devices, and brain-computer interfaces (BCI).From the analysis of these approaches, we can draw the following conclusions. Regarding classical rehabilitation techniques, there is insufficient evidence to state that a particular approach is more effective in promoting gait recovery than other. Combination of different rehabilitation strategies seems to be more effective than over-ground gait training alone. Robotic devices need further research to show their suitability for walking training and their effects on over-ground gait. The use of FES combined with different walking retraining strategies has shown to result in improvements in hemiplegic gait. Reports on non-invasive BCIs for stroke recovery are limited to the rehabilitation of upper limbs; however, some works suggest that there might be a common mechanism which influences upper and lower limb recovery simultaneously, independently of the limb chosen for the rehabilitation therapy. Functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) enables researchers to detect signals from specific regions of the cortex during performance of motor activities for the development of future BCIs. Future research would make possible to analyze the impact of rehabilitation on brain plasticity, in order to adapt treatment resources to meet the needs of each patient and to optimize the recovery process.

Brain-computer interface (BCI) systems do not work for all users. This article introduces a novel combination of tasks that could inspire BCI systems that are more accurate than conventional BCIs, especially for users who cannot attain accuracy adequate for effective communication. Subjects performed tasks typically used in two BCI approaches, namely event-related desynchronization (ERD) and steady state visual evoked potential (SSVEP), both individually and in a 'hybrid' condition that combines both tasks. Electroencephalographic (EEG) data were recorded across three conditions. Subjects imagined moving the left or right hand (ERD), focused on one of the two oscillating visual stimuli (SSVEP), and then simultaneously performed both tasks. Accuracy and subjective measures were assessed. Offline analyses suggested that half of the subjects did not produce brain patterns that could be accurately discriminated in response to at least one of the two tasks. If these subjects produced comparable EEG patterns when trying to use a BCI, these subjects would not be able to communicate effectively because the BCI would make too many errors. Results also showed that switching to a different task used in BCIs could improve accuracy in some of these users. Switching to a hybrid approach eliminated this problem completely, and subjects generally did not consider the hybrid condition more difficult. Results validate this hybrid approach and suggest that subjects who cannot use a BCI should consider switching to a different BCI approach, especially a hybrid BCI. Subjects proficient with both approaches might combine them to increase information throughput by improving accuracy, reducing selection time, and/or increasing the number of possible commands.

No abstract

This paper compares different ICA preprocessing algorithms on cross-validated training data as well as on unseen test data. The EEG data were recorded from 22 electrodes placed over the whole scalp during motor imagery tasks consisting of four different classes, namely the imagination of right hand, left hand, foot and tongue movements. Two sessions on different days were recorded for eight subjects. Three different independent components analysis (ICA) algorithms (Infomax, FastICA and SOBI) were studied and compared to common spatial patterns (CSP), Laplacian derivations and standard bipolar derivations, which are other well-known preprocessing methods. Among the ICA algorithms, the best performance was achieved by Infomax when using all 22 components as well as for the selected 6 components. However, the performance of Laplacian derivations was comparable with Infomax for both cross-validated and unseen data. The overall best four-class classification accuracies (between 33% and 84%) were obtained with CSP. For the cross-validated training data, CSP performed slightly better than Infomax, whereas for unseen test data, CSP yielded significantly better classification results than Infomax in one of the sessions.

An adaptive P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) using a 12 × 7 matrix explored new paradigms to improve bit rate and accuracy. During online use, the system adaptively selects the number of flashes to average. Five different flash patterns were tested. The 19-flash paradigm represents the typical row/column presentation (i.e., 12 columns and 7 rows). The 9- and 14-flash A & B paradigms present all items of the 12 × 7 matrix three times using either nine or 14 flashes (instead of 19), decreasing the amount of time to present stimuli. Compared to 9-flash A, 9-flash B decreased the likelihood that neighboring items would flash when the target was not flashing, thereby reducing interference from items adjacent to targets. 14-flash A also reduced adjacent item interference and 14-flash B additionally eliminated successive (double) flashes of the same item. Results showed that accuracy and bit rate of the adaptive system were higher than the non-adaptive system. In addition, 9- and 14-flash B produced significantly higher performance than their respective A conditions. The results also show the trend that the 14-flash B paradigm was better than the 19-flash pattern for naïve users.