Advertisement

Influence of Difference of Spatial Information Obtained from a Moving Virtual Sound Presentation on Auditory BCI

  • Yuki Onodera
  • Isao Nambu
  • Yasuhiro Wada
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11307)

Abstract

Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology can control external devices by using human brain activity. In a previous study, a compact BCI system for the estimation of the intended direction was realized by using virtual sound. Some data were averaged to improve the identification rate. Herein, we expected to obtain a higher identification rate with a small amount of averaged data by improving the localization accuracy of users. In this study, to investigate the effect of the difference of auditory stimulation methods (static sound and moving sound) on brain activity, we performed an experiment with six directions of auditory stimulation using each method and measured the brain activity of subjects. We used a variant of regularized Fisher’s discriminant analysis to classify brain waves. As a result of comparing the identification rates obtained through each method, individual differences were observed in the effect on the identification rate, and an improvement was observed for moving sound as compared with static sound.

Keywords

Auditory BCI EEG P300 Virtual sound 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partly supported by Nagai N-S Promotion Foundation for Science of Perception, Nagaoka University of Technology Presidential Research Grant, and Japan Society for the Science Promotion Kakenhi Grant Number 16K00182.

References

  1. 1.
    Wolpaw, J.R., Birbaumer, N., McFarland, D.J., Pfurtscheller, G., Vaughan, T.M.: Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin. Neuro-Physiol. 113(6), 767–791 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stewart, A.X., Nuthmann, A., Sanguinetti, G.: Single-trial classification of EEG in a visual object task using ICA and machine learning. J. Neurosci. Methods 228, 1–14 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farwell, L.A., Donchin, E.: Talking off the top of your head: toward a mental prosthesis utilizing event-related brain potentials. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 70(6), 510–523 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nambu, I., Ebisawa, M., Kogure, M., Yano, S., Hokari, H., Wada, Y.: Estimating the intended sound direction of the user: toward an auditory brain-computer interface using out-of-head sound localization. PLoS ONE 8(2), e57174 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sugi, M., et al.: Improving the performance of an auditory brain-computer interface using virtual sound sources by shortening stimulus onset asynchrony. Front. Neuroscience. 12, 108 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wightman, F.L., Kistler, D.J.: Resolution of front-back ambiguity in spatial hearing by listener and source movement. J. Acoust. Soc. America. 105(5), 2841–2853 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gonzalez, A., Nambu, I., Hokari, H., Wada, Y.: EEG channel selection using particle swarm optimization for the classification of auditory event-related potentials. Sci. World J. 2014, 11 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EngineeringNagaoka University of TechnologyNagaoka, NiigataJapan

Personalised recommendations