An Automatic SSVEP Component Selection Measure for High-Performance Brain-Computer Interface

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 215)


This paper proposed an automatic steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) component selection (SCS) measure for a high-performance SSVEP-based brain-computer interface (SBCI) system. First, multi-electrode raw electroencephalogram signals are spatially pre-processed using a blind source separation technique resulting in multi-source components. The SCS measure of each component is then calculated by continuous wavelet transform (CWT), and the ensemble features that contain the weighted CWT energy of individual SSVEP harmonic are extracted. Second, the SSVEP component with maximal SCS measure is considered to have the highest signal-to-noise ratio. In our SBCI system, six stimulus frequencies served as the input patterns. Offline analyses were performed, through which the common electrode locations, the time window size, and the number of harmonics were defined. Thereafter the results of our method were compared with those of others. We next carried out an online test of the SBCI for 11 subjects using eight common electrode locations, a 1.5-s time window, and the first and second harmonics. The test results showed that our method achieved an average accuracy of 95.2 % and a practical bit rate of 68.2 bits/min.


Brain-computer interface (BCI) Electroencephalogram (EEG) Steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) Automatic SSVEP component selection measure 



This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant Nos. 90820305 and 60775040. The authors would like to thank all subjects for their participation.


  1. 1.
    Wolpaw JR, Birbaumer N, McFarland DJ, Pfurtscheller G, Vaughan TM (2002) Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin Neurophysiol 113:767–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lalor EC, Kelly SP, Finucane C, Burke R, Smith R, Reilly RB, McDarby G (2005) Steady-state VEP-based brain-computer interface control in an immersive 3D gaming environment. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process 2005(19):3156–3164CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Müller-Putz GR, Scherer R, Brauneis C, Pfurtscheller G (2005) Steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based communication: impact of harmonic frequency components. J Neural Eng 2:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shyu KK, Lee PL, Liu YJ, Sie JJ (2010) Dual-frequency steady-state visual evoked potential for brain computer interface. Neurosci Lett 483(1):28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shyu KK, Lee PL, Lee MH, Lin MH, Lai RJ, Chiu YJ (2010) Development of a low-cost FPGA-based SSVEP BCI multimedia control system. IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst 4(2):125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lopez-Gordo MA, Prieto A, Pelayo F, Morillas C (2010) Use of phase in brain-computer interfaces based on steady-state visual evoked potentials. Neural Process Lett 32(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luo A, Sullivan TJ (2010) A user-friendly SSVEP-based brain-computer interface using a time-domain classifier. J Neural Eng 7(2)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng M, Gao X, Gao S (2002) Design and implementation of a brain–computer interface with high transfer rates. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 49(10):1181–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang ZM, Li XQ, Deng ZD (2010) A CWT-based SSVEP classification method for brain-computer interface system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on intelligent control and information processing. Dalian, pp 43–48Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jia C, Gao X, Hong B, Gao S (2011) Frequency and phase mixed coding in SSVEP-based brain—computer interface. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 58(1):200–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brunner C, Allison BZ, Krusienski DJ, Kaiser V, Müller-Putz GR, Pfurtscheller G, Neuper C (2010) Improved signal processing approaches in an offline simulation of a hybrid brain-computer interface. J Neurosci Meth 188(1):165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Müller-Putz GR, Eder E, Wriessnegger SC, Pfurtscheller G (2008) Comparison of DFT and lock-in amplifier features and search for optimal electrode positions in SSVEP-based BCI. J Neurosci Meth 168(1):174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang YJ, Wang RP, Gao XR, Hong B, Gao SK (2006) A practical VEP-based brain-computer interface. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 14(2):234–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu ZH, Yao DH (2008) Frequency detection with stability coefficient for steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based BCIs. J Neural Eng 5(1):36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Friman O, Volosyak I, Graser A (2007) Multiple channel detection of steady-state visual evoked potentials for brain–computer interfaces. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 54(4):742–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bin G, Gao X, Yan Z, Hong B, Gao S (2009) An online multi-channel SSVEP-based brain-computer interface using a canonical correlation analysis method. J Neural Eng 6(4):046002Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pan J, Gao X, Duan F, Yan Z, Gao S (2011) Enhancing the classification accuracy of steady-state visual evoked potential-based brain—computer interfaces using phase. J Neural Eng 8(3):036027. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/8/3/036027 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yan Z, Gao X, Bin G, Hong B, Gao S (2009) A half-field stimulation pattern for SSVEP-based brain-computer interface. Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009(2006):6461–6464Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peters BO, Pfurtscheller G, Flyvbjerg H (2001) Automatic differentiation of multichannel EEG signals. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 48(1):111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Regan D (1989) Human brain electrophysiology: evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cichocki A, Amari S (2002) Adaptive blind signal and image processing: learning algorithms and applications (ch. 4). Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Belouchrani A, Abed-Meraim K, Cardoso J-F, Moulines E (1997) A blind source separation technique using second-order statistics. IEEE Trans Signal Process 45(2):434–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goupillaud P, Grossman A, Morlet J (1984) Cycle-octave and related transforms in seismic signal analysis. Geoexploration 23(1):85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang SY, Aziza TZ, Steina JF, Liu X (2005) Time–frequency analysis of transient neuromuscular events: dynamic changes in activity of the subthalamic nucleus and forearm muscles related to the intermittent resting tremor. J Neurosci Meth 145(1–2):151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector network. Mach Learn 20:273–297MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vapnik VN (1995) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sanei S, Chambers JA (2007) EEG signal processing (ch. 2). Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Delorme A, Makeig S (2004) EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single trial eeg dynamics. J Neurosci Meth 134:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chatrian GE, Bergamini L, Dondey M, Klass DW, Lennox-Buchthal M, Petersén I (1974) A glossary of terms most commonly used by clinical electroencephalographers. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 37:538–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Townsend G, Lapallo BK, Boulay CB, Krusienski DJ, Frye GE, Hauser CK, Schwartz NE, Vaughan TM, Wolpaw JR, Sellers EW (2010) A novel P300-based brain-computer interface stimulus presentation paradigm: moving beyond rows and columns. Clin Neurophysiol 121(7):1109–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems, Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology, Department of Computer Science and TechnologyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations