Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 231, Issue 3, pp 351–365 | Cite as

Electroencephalography (EEG)-based neurofeedback training for brain–computer interface (BCI)

  • Kyuwan ChoiEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Electroencephalography has become a popular tool in basic brain research, but in recent years, several practical limitations have been highlighted. Some of the drawbacks pertain to the offline analyses of the neural signal that prevent the subjects from engaging in real-time error correction during learning. Other limitations include the complex nature of the visual stimuli, often inducing fatigue and introducing considerable delays, possibly interfering with spontaneous performance. By replacing the complex external visual input with internally driven motor imagery, we can overcome some delay problems, at the expense of losing the ability to precisely parameterize features of the input stimulus. To address these issues, we here introduce a nontrivial modification to brain–computer Interfaces (BCI). We combine the fast signal processing of motor imagery with the ability to parameterize external visual feedback in the context of a very simple control task: attempting to intentionally control the direction of an external cursor on command. By engaging the subject in motor imagery while providing real-time visual feedback on their instantaneous performance, we can take advantage of positive features present in both externally- and internally driven learning. We further use a classifier that automatically selects the cortical activation features that most likely maximize the performance accuracy. Under this closed loop coadaptation system, we saw a progression of the cortical activation that started in sensorymotor areas, when at chance performance motor imagery was explicitly used, migrated to BA6 under deliberate control and ended in the more frontal regions of prefrontal cortex, when at maximal performance accuracy, the subjects reportedly developed spontaneous mental control of the instructed direction. We discuss our results in light of possible applications of this simple BCI paradigm to study various cognitive phenomena involving the deliberate control of a directional signal in decision making tasks performed with intent.

Keywords

EEG Brain plasticity Neurofeedback training Motor imagery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Elizabeth B. Torres for editing the manuscript.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 5583 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (AVI 4013 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (AVI 9959 kb)

References

  1. Attias H (1999) Inferring parameters and structure of latent variables models by variation Bayes. In: Proceedings of 15th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  2. Balakrishnan S, Madigam D (2008) Algorithms for sparse linear classifiers in the massive data setting. J Mach Learn Res 9:313–337Google Scholar
  3. Batenburg P, O’hagan A, Veenstra R (1994) Bayesian discovery sampling in financial auditing: a hierarchical prior model for substantive test sample sizes. The Statistician 43(1):99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi K (2012) Control of a vehicle with EEG signals in real-time and system evaluation. Eur J Appl Physiol 112(2):755–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Congedo M, Lubar J, Joffe D (2004) Low-resolution electromagnetic tomography neurofeedback. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 12(4):387–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edin F, Klingberg T, Johansson P, McNab F, Tegner J, Compte A (2009) Mechanism for top-down control of working memory capacity. PNAS 106:6802–6807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fried I, Katz A, McCarthy G, Sass K, Williamson P, Spencer S, Spencer D (1991) Functional organization of human supplementary motor cortex studied by electrical stimulation. J Neurosci 11:3656–3666PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Grave de Peralta Menendez R, Andino S, Morand S, Michel CM, Landis T (2000) Imaging the electrical activity of the brain: ELECTRA. Hum Brain Mapp 9:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grave de Peralta Menendez R, Andino S, Perez L, Ferrez P, Millan J (2005) Non-invasive estimation of local field potentials for neuroprosthesis control. Cogn Process 6:59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. He Z, Cichocki A, Xie S, Choi K (2010) Detecting the number of clusters in n-way probabilistic clustering. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 32(11):2006–2021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kamousi B, Liu Z, He B (2005) Classification of motor imagery tasks for brain–computer interface applications by means of two equivalent dipoles analysis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 13(2):166–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krishnapuran B, Carin L, Figueiredo M, Hartemink A (2005) Sparse multinomial logistic regression: fast algorithms and generalization bounds. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 27(6):957–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li Y, Kambara H, Koike Y, Sugiyama M (2010) Application of covariate shift adaptation techniques in brain–computer interfaces. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 57(6):1318–1324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lim C, Lee T, Guan C, Fung D, Cheung Y, Teng S, Zhang H, Krishnan K (2010) Effectiveness of a brain–computer interface based programme for the treatment of ADHD: a pilot study. Psychopharmacol Bull 43(1):73–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu T, Shi J, Zhao D, Yang J (2008) The relationship between EEG band power, cognitive processing and intelligence in school-age children. Psychol Sci Q 50:259–268Google Scholar
  16. Maunsell J, Gibson J (1992) Visual response latencies in striate cortex of the macaque monkey. J Neurophysiol 68(4):1332–1344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Middendorf M, McMillan G, Galhoun G, Jones K (2000) Brain–computer interfaces based on the steady-state visual evoked response. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 8(2):211–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neal R (1996) Bayesian learning for neural networks. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Noirhomme Q, Kitnew R, Macq B (2008) Single-trial EEG source reconstruction for brain computer interface. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55(5):1592–1601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nunez P (1995) Neocortical dynamics and human EEG rhythms. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Nunez P, Silberstein R (2000) On the relationship of synaptic activity to macroscopic measurements: does co-registration of EEG with fMRI make sense? Brain Topogr 13(2):79–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ojakangas C, Shaikhouni A, Friehs G, Caplan A, Serruya M, Saleh M, Morris D, Donoghue J (2006) Decoding movement intent from human premotor cortex neurons for neural prosthetic applications. J Clin Neurophysiol 23(6):577–584PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Qin L, Ding L, He B (2004) Motor imagery classification by means of source analysis for brain-computer interface applications. J Neural Eng 1:135–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ramoser H, Muller-Gerking J, Pfurtscheller G (2000) Optimal spatial filtering of single trial EEG during imagined hand movement. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 8(4):441–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sarvas J (1987) Basic mathematical and electromagnetic concepts of the biomagnetic inverse problem. Phys Med Biol 32(1):11–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sato M (2001) Online model selection based on the variational Bayes. Neural Comput 13:1649–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sato M, Yoshioka T, Kajihara S, Toyama K, Goda N, Doya K, Kawato M (2004) Hierarchical Bayesian estimation for MEG inverse problem. NeuroImage 23:806–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Serby H, Yom-Tov E, Inbar G (2005) An improved P300-based brain-computer interface. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 13:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shevade S, Keerthi S (2003) A simple and efficient algorithm for gene selection using sparse logistic regression. Bioinformatics 19(17):2246–2253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stomrud E, Hansseon O, Minthon L, Blennow K, Rosen I (2010) Slowing of EEG correlates with CSF biomarkers and reduced cognitive speed in elderly with normal cognition over 4 years. Neurobiol Aging 31(2):215–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang Y, Wang R, Gao X, Hong B, Gao S (2006) A practical VEP-based brain-computer interface. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 14(2):234–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wolpaw J, Birmbaumer N, McFaland D, Pfurtscheller G, Vaughan T (2002) Brain computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin Neurophysiol 113:767–791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology Department, Computational Biomedicine Imaging and Modeling, Computer ScienceRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations