Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.

MII Lab.
Toward a better Event-Related Potential
based Brain-Computer Interface:
Paradigm and Algorithm
Yaming XU, 37-107451
Supervisor: Prof. Yoshikazu NAKAJIMA
2012/07/13
Intermediate Ph.D. Defense, Department of Bioengineering

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Outline
Background
Introduction
Novelties: Paradigm and Algorithm
Experiments
Results and Discussion
Conclusion
Future Plans

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Ref: alshopefoundation.org/the-center-of-hope/brain-computer-interface.php
1. Neuromuscular disorders:
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS),
Brainstem stroke,
Spinal cord injury, etc.
Ref: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-121
2. Space Industry
Ref: siemens.com/innovation/en/publikationen/
publications_pof/pof_spring_2002/transportation
_articles/accident_prevention.htm
3. Driver monitoring
Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) allows primates to interact with computers just using their brain signals
~6000 ALS patients are diagnosed each year in U.S. [1] and Japan [2]
+90% ALS patients reject to prolong life since the loss of communication ability [3]
[1] Mitsumoto H, Prezedborski S, Gordon PH, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, New York: Taylor and Francis Group, (2006).
[2] http://www.jsnp.jp/cerebral_11.htm
[3] Mitsumoto H. Classifi, Classification and clinical features of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, New York: Demos Publication, (1994) pp. 1-20.
Background
Introduction Novelties Experiments Results & Discussion Conclusion Next

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Background
Introduction Novelties Experiments Results & Discussion Conclusion Next
BCI System Framework
Electroencephalography (EEG) :
Non-invasive, etc.
Control Signals:
ERP (P300)
High Information throughput
~90% human can evoke [4]
Long-term training

ERS/ERD
SSVEP
SCP

[4] Guger et al, How many people are able to control a P300-based braincomputer interface (BCI)?, Neuroscience Letters, Vol.462, (2009) pp.9498.
Ref: Modified from Mak et al, "Clinical Applications of BrainComputer Interfaces: Current
State and Future Prospects", IEEE REVIEWS IN BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, Vol.2, (2009)
pp.187-199

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
P300-based BCI:
Ref: Modified from Brunner et al, "Does the
P300 speller depend on eye gaze?, J.
Neural Eng., Vol.7, (2010) pp.1-9.
Introduction
Novelties Experiments Results & Discussion Conclusion Next Background
Whats P300?

Oddball Paradigm:
Rare Common
Brain Signal:
~300ms ~300ms Time
~300ms ~300ms
Time
Serve as:
Stimulus
Sequence:
Time

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Novelties
Experiments Results & Discussion Conclusion Next Background Introduction
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
Stimulus #1 Stimulus #2 Stimulus #3 Stimulus #4 Stimulus #5 Stimulus #6
Sequence k:
1. Adjacent Distraction Effect:
k
x
1

Response k:
Ref: Modified from [5]
E F
K L
2. Enlarge items size
Maybe increase VEP amplitude [7]
E F
K L
T
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
:

1. Enlarge adjacent distance
a. visual acuity*5+ => distraction (?)
b. easier attention => mental workload *6+
Hypothesis #1: Smaller-size Matrix evokes larger ERP?
k
x
2

k
x
3

k
x
4

k
x
5

k
x
6

[5+ Brunner et al, "Does the P300 speller depend on eye gaze?, J. Neural Eng., Vol.7, (2010) pp.1-9
[6] Polich, "Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b", Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol.118, (2007) pp.21282148.
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoked_potential#Visual_evoked_potential

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Novelties
Experiments Results & Discussion Conclusion Next Background Introduction
2. Refractory Effect:
Hypothesis #2: SC evokes larger ERP than RC?
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
Stimulus #1 Stimulus #2 Stimulus #4 Stimulus #3 Stimulus #5 Stimulus #6
Row/Column
(RC):
TTI < 500ms
Response:
TTI << 500ms
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
Stimulus #1 Stimulus #2 Stimulus #3
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
Stimulus #8 Stimulus #9

Single Character
(SC):
Target-to-Target Temporal Interval (TTI) is proportional to the P300 amplitude [8]
[8] Martens et al, "Overlap and refractory effects in a brain-computer interface speller based on the visual P300 event-related potential", J. Neural Eng., Vol.6, (2009) pp.1-9.
To improve Average TTI should be enlarged

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
STEP-1
Novelties
Experiments Results & Discussion Conclusion Next Background Introduction
3. Level Design & Predictive Language Model:
(A) Conventional 8x8 Paradigm
3.1 Two-Level Design
3.2 Predictive Language Model
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
Probability Threshold [%]
M
e
a
n

S
t
e
p
s

[
C
o
u
n
t
s
]


Technology (3.51KB)
Economy (3.84KB)
Politics (7.98KB)
Sports (8.43KB)
Bethink Yourselves (77.9KB)
Emma (86.4KB)
The Moonstone (1.02MB)
[9] Cleary et al, "Data Compression Using Adaptive Coding and Partial String Matching", IEEE Transactions of communications, Vol.COM-32(4), (1984) pp.396-402.



Partial Predictive-Match (PPM) Model [9]

) ... | (

1 2
8 ,..., 2 , 1 max

=
N N K N
i
i
c c c c P i
STEP-2
STEP-P
3.05
2
.
3
1

vs.
(B) Proposed 3X3 Two-Level Paradigm
8.14
6
.
1
5

Ref: Modified from [5]

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
8x8 RC (B.1) 3x3 RC (step-1) (B.2) 3x3 RC (step-2) (B.3) 3x3 SC (step-p)
3.05
2
.
3
1

8.14
6
.
1
5

Novelties
Experiments Results & Discussion Conclusion Next Background Introduction
4. Proposed 3x3 Two-Level Predictive (TLP) paradigm
(A) Conventional 8x8 RC Paradigm (B) Proposed 3x3 TLP Paradigm
Experiments were designed to validate:
Hypothesis #1: 8x8 vs. 3x3
Hypothesis #2: RC vs. SC
Hypothesis #3: 3x3 TLP vs. 3x3 RC/SC vs. 8x8 RC
Hypothesis #4: step-1 vs. step-2 vs. step-p
Hypothesis #3: TLP will outperform RC, SC
Hypothesis #4: no Sig. Diff. workloads among step-1, -2, -p

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Experiment
Results & Discussion Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties
1. Subjects
2. Data Acquisition, Processing
Ref: mindmedia.nl 10-20 system
Amplified
&
Digitalize
in 512Hz
Band pass
filtered
0.5~30Hz
Sectioned into
epochs of
-100~800ms
Moving
averaged &
down-sampled
to 20hz
classifier
3. Experimental Procedure
Calibration Phase Online Test Phase
Stim. Type N. of Char. N. of Seq. Feedback Stim. Type N. of Char. N. of Seq. Feedback
8x8 Matrix
Session
RC 30 15 NO RC 57
Determin
ed by
WSR
YES
w/ Err.
Correction
3x3 Matrix
Session
RC, SC 30 15 NO TLP 57
Determin
ed by
WSR
YES
w/ Err.
Correction
14 able-bodied subjects (10 M & 4 F, age: 25.291.77) were recruited.

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Experiment
Results & Discussion Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties
4. Classification
Given a sequence of stimuli:
And the corresponding EEG epochs:
Conventional SWLDA stops here.
4.2 SWLDA Classifier Testing Procedure:
} ,..., , {
2 1 m
c c c C =
} ,..., , {
2 1 m
x x x X

=
So the target stimulus is indicated by:
)} | ( { max arg

i
i
c X L i =
4.3 Bayes Fusion based Classifier:
However, the PRIOR PROBABILITY of stimulus i has
never been considered (or seemed as equal).
A Discriminant Function of Stepwise-LDA:

<
> +
= + =
0 )) ( sgn( , 1
0 )) ( sgn( , 1
_ , ) (
x f
x f
label class b x w x f
T

Where, ) (
) 1 ( ) 1 ( 1 +
=

T
w
0 = + b x w
T

multi-variant feature space
[10] Krusienski et al, "A Comparison of Classification Techniques for the P300 Speller", J.
Neural Eng., Vol.3, (2006) pp.299-305.
4.1 SWLDA Classifier Training Procedure:
Likelihood for any Stimulus i:
) ( ) | (
i SWLDA i
x f c X L

=
N S L
D <- R
T G A
N S L D <- R T G A
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Character [#]
P
r
i
o
r

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

[
%
]
BRAI

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Experiment
Results & Discussion Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties
4. Classification
4.3 Bayes Fusion based Classifier (continues):
Posterior probability can be gotten by a straightforward
Bayes Fusion:
) (
) | ( ) (
) | (
X P
c X L c p
X c P
i i
i

=
5. Performance Measures
Where is independent with i, so it can be
omitted:
) (X P
) | ( ) ( ) | (
i i i
c X L c p X c P
To be more nature, the likelihood should
be converted into:
) | (
i
c X L
]} ) | ( [ exp{ 1
1
) | (
b c X L a
c X P
i
i
+ +
=
Finally, the target stimulus is determined by:
)} | ( { max arg

X c P i
i
i
=
Hypothesis #5: Bayes Fusion is better than SWLDA?
Prior probability for each stimulus in :
) ... | ( ) (
1 2
=
N N K N
i PPM i
c c c c P c p
C
selection total
selection correct of number
P =
5.1 Selection Accuracy (ACC):
T
Bits
ITR=
)
1
1
( log ) 1 ( log log
2 2 2

+ + =
N
P
P P P N Bits
candidates selection of number N :
5.2 Information Transfer Rate (ITR)[11]:
Where

s
>

=
5 . 0 0
5 . 0
1 2
SR
SR
T
SR
WSR
N
Bits
SR
2
log
=
5.3 Written Symbol Rate (WSR) [12]:
Where
[11] Wolpaw et al, "Braincomputer interfaces for communication and control", Clinical
Neurophysiology, Vol.113, (2002) pp.767-791.
[12] Furdea, et al, "An auditory oddball (P300) spelling system for brain-computer
interfaces", Psychophysiology, Vol.46 (2009), pp.1-9.

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Fig. 1. Grand mean waveform of Target (solid) and Non-target (dashed) responses at electrode location Cz and O1
for each 8x8 RC (black), 3x3 RC (cyan) and 3x3 (magenta) separately.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Time [s]
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
u
V
]
Cz


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-2
0
2
4
6
O1
0 200 400 600 800
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5


8x8 RC
3x3 RC
3x3 SC
Target
Non-target
1. Comparison between 8x8 RC, 3x3 RC, 3x3 SC on ERP Waveform morphology:
P300 (Fz, Cz, Pz) N200 (O1, O2) Non-target response
Peak Amplitude
(V)
Peak Latency
(ms)
Peak Amplitude
(V)
Peak Latency
(ms)
Peak-to-Peak
Amplitude (V)
8x8 RC 4.05 317.90* -1.88 194.04 1.65
3x3 RC 3.71 257.94 -1.65 171.48 3.50***
3x3 SC 5.73** 274.41 -2.25 194.82 1.57
Results & Discuss
Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties Experiments
Hypothesis #1: Smaller-size Matrix evokes larger ERP? Hypothesis #2: SC evokes larger ERP than RC?

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
2. Comparison between 8x8 RC, 3x3 RC, 3x3 SC on Offline ACC, ITR and WSR:
Fig. 2. Grand mean of Accuracy, Information Transfer Rate and Written Symbol Rate through 10-fold cross validation
as a function of sequence number for 8x8 RC, 3x3 RC, 3x3 SC separately.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
O
f
f
l
i
n
e

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y

[
%
]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Trial Duration [sequences]
O
f
f
l
i
n
e

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

R
a
t
e

[
b
i
t
s
/
m
i
n
]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
W
r
i
t
t
e
n

S
y
m
b
o
l

R
a
t
e

[
s
y
m
b
o
l
s
/
m
i
n
]


8x8 RC
3x3 RC
3x3 SC
Results & Discuss
Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties Experiments
1. The number of sequences to reach maximum WSR:
3x3 RC (5.401.06) vs. 3x3 SC (3.801.18) : t(9) = 2.45, p = 0.0368
2. Accuracy:
Stimulus Type effect: F(2, 18) = 10.68, p = 0.0009
3x3 SC > 8x8 RC(p = 0.0379), 3x3 RC(p = 0.0469)
3. Information Transfer Rate:
Stimulus Type effect: F(2, 18) = 7.97, p = 0.0033
No significant effect found

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Fig. 3. Online Accuracy of 8x8 RC (white), 3x3 RC (light blue) and 3x3 TLP (blue) for each subjects and Mean (with standard error bar).
Significant higher accuracies for 3x3 SC and TLP were achieved.
8x8 RC(73.654.63 %) 3x3 SC(88.461.09 %) TLP(88.991.11 %):
One-way repeated ANOVA: F(2, 26) = 11.136, p = 0.0003

Holm-Sidak post-hoc test:
8x8 RC 3x3 SC: p = 0.0005
8x8 RC 3x3 TLP: p = 0.0003
3x3 SC 3x3 TLP: p = 0.8871
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mean
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Subject [#]
O
n
l
i
n
e

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y

[
%
]


8x8 RC
3x3 SC
3x3 TLP
p < 0.001
3. Comparison between 8x8 RC, 3x3 SC, 3x3 TLP on Online Accuracy:
Results & Discuss
Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties Experiments

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Fig. 4. Online Information Transfer Rate (ITR) for each subjects, Mean (with standard error bar) and Theoretical ITR.
Dark orange extended bars show the theoretical increasing of ITR when excluding time interval between selections.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MeanTheory
5
10
20
50
100
160
Subject [#]
O
n
l
i
n
e

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

R
a
t
e

[
b
i
t
s
/
m
i
n
]


8x8 RC
3x3 SC
3x3 TLP
p < 0.01
4. Comparison between 8x8 RC, 3x3 SC, 3x3 TLP on Online ITR:
Results & Discuss
Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties Experiments
8x8 RC(17.444.66 bits/min) 3x3 SC(18.795.02 bits/min) TLP(23.306.23 bits/min):
One-way repeated ANOVA: F(2, 26) = 8.769, p = 0.0012

Holm-Sidak post-hoc test:
8x8 RC 3x3 SC: p = 0.3626
8x8 RC 3x3 TLP: p = 0.0005
3x3 SC 3x3 TLP: p = 0.0049

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Fig. 5. Time to complete the task for each of 14 subjects and Mean (with standard error bar) for 8x8 RC paradigm and 3x3 TLP.
Stacked bars mean non-continues spelling and dashed bars indicate the subject couldnt finish the task.
1. Total Consumed Time:
8x8 RC(19.671.93 min) 3x3 TLP(12.500.89 min): t(11) = 3.97, p = 0.0022
2. Break Times:
8x8 RC (22.30 times) vs. 3x3 TLP (0.250.62 times): t(11) = 2.40, p = 0.0353
8x8 RC 3x3 TLP
0
1
2
3
Stimulus Paradigm [#]
R
e
s
t
a
r
t

T
i
m
e
s

[
c
o
u
n
t
]
p < 0.05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mean
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Subject [#]
T
i
m
e

t
o

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

[
m
i
n
]
1 2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2


8x8 RC
3x3 TLP
p < 0.01
Results & Discuss
Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties Experiments
5. Comparison between 8x8 RC, 3x3 TLP on Time to complete the spelling task:
Hypothesis #3: TLP will outperform RC, SC

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Fig. 6. Left: Online Accuracy for step-1 (white), step-2 (light blue) and step-p (blue) averaging over all 14 subjects;
Center and Right: Grand mean (all 14 subjects) waveforms for step-1, 2, p of Target (solid) and Non-target (dashed)
at electrodes Cz and O1. Sample-wised p-values are coded by color. No significance was revealed.
1. Online Accuracy for step-1, step-2 and step-p:
Step-1(86.522.56 %) Step-2(92.051.58 %) Step-p(88.481.19 %):
One-way repeated ANOVA: F(2, 26) = 2.25, p = 0.1191
1 2 p
0
20
40
60
80
100
Step [#]
O
n
l
i
n
e

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y

[
%
]


-2
0
2
4
6
Cz
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
u
V
]


-2
0
2
4
6
O1




Time [s]


0 200 400 600 800


0.00
0.01
0.05
1.00
Target
Non-target


0 200 400 600 800
Target
Non-target
Step-1
Step-2
Step-p
p > 0.05
Results & Discuss
Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties Experiments
6. Comparison between step-1, step-2, step-p on Online ACC and ERP waveform:
2. ERP waveform for step-1, step-2 and step-p:
Point-wised One-way repeated ANOVA: no any significance was revealed
=> mental demands/workloads are not essentially different although prediction involved.
Hypothesis #4: no Sig. Diff. workloads among step-1, -2, -p

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Offline Accuracy:
1. SWLDA (88.461.09 %) vs. Bayes fusion (89.111.05 %): t(13) = -1.45, p = 0.1719
2. Although no significant improvement, 6 out of 14 subjects got better accuracy and 5 of rest kept unchanged.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mean
50
60
70
80
90
100
Subject [#]
O
f
f
l
i
n
e

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y

[
%
]


SWLDA
Bayes fusion
p = 0.1719
Results & Discuss
Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties Experiments
7. Comparison between SWLDA and Bayes Fusion-based Classifications on ACC:
Fig. 7. Offline Accuracy of SWLDA (white) and Bayes (blue) for each subjects and Mean (with standard error bar).
Hypothesis #5: Bayes Fusion is better than SWLDA?

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
1. Significant larger P300 potentials were evoked by manipulating stimulus properties;

2. Greatly decreased Task Time by introducing an intuitive prediction scheme to ERP
Stimulus Paradigm while did not induce higher mental workload;

3. The Proposed TLP outperformed conventional RC paradigm in Online Accuracy, Speed,
Information Transfer rate and much more robust;

4. The Bayesian Fusion-based Classification method was slightly better than the SWLDA.
Conclusion
Next Background Introduction Novelties Experiments Results & Discussion

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Sequence k:
SOA: 125ms
epoch length: 800ms
epoch length: 800ms
Background Introduction Novelties Experiments Results & Discussion Conclusion
Next
Signals:
Overlap Effect:
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Relative Stimulus Order [#]
E
r
r
o
r

S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

[
C
o
u
n
t
]
Fig. 8. Error Distribution from previous experiment.
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
Stimulus #1 Stimulus #2 Stimulus #3
D E F
J K L
P Q R
D E F
J K L
P Q R
Stimulus #8 Stimulus #9

Epoch #1 Epoch #2 Epoch #9

SWLDA
Score #1 Score #2 Score #9

SVM
Fig. 9. Ensemble of WLDA and SVM.

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
22
O B C D E F
G P I J Q L
T H A N K S
R M U V W X
Y Z 0 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
Fz
0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
C3
0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
Cz
0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
u
V
]
C4
0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
P3
0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
Pz
0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
P4
0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
Time [s]
O1
0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
O2
C.1

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
-2
0
2
4
6
Fz




0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
C3




0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
Cz




0
0.01
0.05
1.0


0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
u
V
] C4




0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
P3




0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
Pz




0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
P4




0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
O1


Time [s]


0 200 400 600 800
-2
0
2
4
6
O2




0 200 400 600 800
C.2

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Frontal lobe
Parietal lobe
Occipital lobe
Temporal lobe
Central Sulcus
Visual Info
Somatosensory Info
Sensorymotor Cortex: Motor Info
C.3

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
9/16/2012
Averaging over multiple responses?
1. Backgroud pk-pk amplitude is 50-100 muV
2. P300 pk amplitude is 2-5 muV
3. Low SNR
4. Enhance by averaging


5
0
-
1
0
0

m
u
V

C.4
P300: Endogenous just depends on whether subjects perceived the stimulus occurrence
but no relationship with its physical properties.
VEP: Endogenous depends on stimuluss physical properties. Like: stimulus strength.

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
An English Sentence with 57 characters:

PLEASE WASH YOUR HANDS WITH WATER AND SOAP BEFORE DINNER!

Half words were included in the training set for PPM;
About 2/3 characters can be predicted by the trained PPM.
C.5

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Experiment
Results & Discussion Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties
4. Classification
Given a sequence of stimuli:
And the corresponding EEG epochs:
Likelihood for any Stimulus i:
So the target stimulus is indicated by:
Conventional SWLDA stops here.
4.1 SWLDA Classifier Training Procedure:
Given a group of labeled epochs from calibration phase:
} ,..., 0 , 1 | ) , {(
c i i
l i y y x = =

Lets assume:
) , 0 N( ~ , response target : ,
) 1 (

n s n s x + =
+
) , 0 N( ~ , response target - non : ,
) 1 (

n b n b x + =

So, Target epoch:

Non-target epoch:
) , N( ~
) 1 (
s x

+
) , N( ~
) 1 (
b x

4.2 SWLDA Classifier Testing Procedure:
} ,..., , {
2 1 m
c c c C =
} ,..., , {
2 1 m
x x x X

=
) ( ) | (
i SWLDA i
x f c X L

=
)} | ( { max arg

i
i
c X L i =
4.3 Bayes Fusion based Classifier:
However, the PRIOR PROBABILITY of stimulus i has
never been considered (or seemed as equal).
0 = + b x w
T

Then, a discriminant function:

<
> +
= + =
0 )) ( sgn( , 1
0 )) ( sgn( , 1
_ , ) (
x f
x f
label class b x w x f
T

Where, ) (
) 1 ( ) 1 ( 1 +
=

T
w
Above is the Fishers LDA (FLD).
multi-variant feature space
b x w x f
T
SWLDA SWLDA
+ =

) (
Where,
E i i w
T
SWLDA
e | 0 ) ( : set of excluded dimension by stepwisefit
[10] Krusienski et al, "A Comparison of Classification Techniques for the P300 Speller", J.
Neural Eng., Vol.3, (2006) pp.299-305.
SWLDA[10] is an extension of
FLD just by a stepwisefit to
reduce feature dimension:
C
1 2 0
... ...
N N K N
c c c c
Lets say: before current stimulus sequence , several
characters have been typed:

Medical Imaging and Information Science Lab.
MII Lab.
Experiment
Results & Discussion Conclusion Next Background Introduction Novelties
4. Classification
4.3 Bayes Fusion based Classifier (continues):
Posterior probability can be gotten by a straightforward
Bayes Fusion:
) (
) | ( ) (
) | (
X P
c X L c p
X c P
i i
i

=
5. Performance Measures
Where is independent with i, so it can be
omitted:
) (X P
) | ( ) ( ) | (
i i i
c X L c p X c P
To be more nature, the likelihood should
be converted into:
) | (
i
c X L
]} ) | ( [ exp{ 1
1
) | (
b c X L a
c X P
i
i
+ +
=
Finally, the target stimulus is determined by:
)} | ( { max arg

X c P i
i
i
=
Hypothesis #5: Bayes Fusion is better than SWLDA?
Prior probability for each stimulus in :
) ... | ( ) (
1 2
=
N N K N
i PPM i
c c c c P c p
C
selection total
selection correct of number
P =
5.1 Selection Accuracy (ACC):
T
Bits
ITR=
)
1
1
( log ) 1 ( log log
2 2 2

+ + =
N
P
P P P N Bits
candidates selection of number N :
5.2 Information Transfer Rate (ITR)[11]:
Where

s
>

=
5 . 0 0
5 . 0
1 2
SR
SR
T
SR
WSR
N
Bits
SR
2
log
=
5.3 Written Symbol Rate (WSR) [12]:
Where
[11] Wolpaw et al, "Braincomputer interfaces for communication and control", Clinical
Neurophysiology, Vol.113, (2002) pp.767-791.
[12] Furdea, et al, "An auditory oddball (P300) spelling system for brain-computer
interfaces", Psychophysiology, Vol.46 (2009), pp.1-9.