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

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.

Feasibility of measuring event related desynchronization with electroencephalography during walking.

Brain Computer Interfaces could be useful in rehabilitation of movement, perhaps also for gait. Until recently, research on movement related brain signals has not included measuring electroencephalography (EEG) during walking, because of the potential artifacts. We investigated if it is possible to measure the event Related Desynchronization (ERD) and event related spectral perturbations (ERSP) during walking. Six subjects walked on a treadmill with a slow speed, while EEG, electromyography (EMG) of the neck muscles and step cycle were measured. A Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) was used to remove EMG artifacts from the EEG signals. It was shown that this method correctly deleted EMG components. A strong ERD in the mu band and a somewhat less strong ERD in the beta band were found during walking compared to a baseline period. Furthermore, lateralized ERSPs were found, depending on the phase in the step cycle. It is concluded that this is a promising method to use in BCI research on walking. These results therefore pave the way for using brain signals related to walking in a BCI context.

Transient and steady-state responses to mechanical stimulation of different fingers reveal interactions based on lateral inhibition.

OBJECTIVE: Simultaneous tactile finger stimulation evokes transient ERP responses that are smaller than the linear summation of ERP responses to individual stimulation. Occlusion and lateral inhibition are two possible mechanisms responsible for this effect. The present study disentangles these two effects using steady-state somatosensory evoked potentials (SSSEP). Simultaneous stimulation on adjacent and distant finger pairs with the same and different stimulation frequencies are compared. METHODS: The index finger (IF), middle finger (MF) and little finger (LF) were mechanically stimulated with a frequency of 18, 22 or 26Hz, respectively. Stimulation was applied for each finger separately, and for the IF (18Hz) in combination with either the MF or LF for 22 and 26Hz, respectively. A measure for interaction (IR) was calculated for the P60 component and the SSSEP amplitude. RESULTS: Significant interactions were found in both the P60 response and in the SSSEP response. Stimulation of adjacent finger combinations caused more interaction than distant finger combinations. No difference was found between stimulation of two fingers with the same or a different frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that lateral inhibition is mainly responsible for the interaction effect. SIGNIFICANCE: These observations provide further insight in the mechanisms behind interaction between somatosensory inputs.