1 / 32

Brain Computer Interfaces

Brain Computer Interfaces. or Krang’s Body. What are BCI good for?. Brain Computer Interfaces as AST Communication for Locked-in persons People with little muscle control (i.e. not enough control for EMG or gaze tracking) People with ALS, spinal injuries Low bandwidth (bit rate)

tcynthia
Download Presentation

Brain Computer Interfaces

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Brain Computer Interfaces orKrang’s Body

  2. What are BCI good for? • Brain Computer Interfaces as AST • Communication for • Locked-in persons • People with little muscle control (i.e. not enough control for EMG or gaze tracking) • People with ALS, spinal injuries • Low bandwidth (bit rate) • Medical Applications • Early diagnostics (dyslexia, sleep disorders, peripheral neuropathy, …) • Rehabilitation (restor.of movement, comb.with VR,..)

  3. What are BCI good for? • AST • Medical applications • Non-medical appl. • Neurofeedback (treating ADHD, rehabilitation, psych.disorders, …, guiding meditation) • Hands-free appl. (combined with HCI) • Security and authentication • Passive BCI help monitoring user’s mental state (e.g. drivers with motion sickness) • Games (e.g. learning to control stress levels) • Learning environment (control of understanding)

  4. Signals used in BCI • Invasive techniques • Intracortical • Cortical surface (ECoG) – can distinguish kinematic parameters for 5-class finger flexion and for motor imaginery pairs (left X right hand, finger X tongue movement) • Noninvasive Techniques • Magneteoencephalogrraphy (MEG) • Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) • Functional infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) • Electroencephalogram (EEG)

  5. What is an EEG? • An electroencephalogram is a measure of the brain's voltage fluctuations as detected from scalp electrodes. • It is an approximation of the cumulative electrical activity of neurons.

  6. EEG Background • 1875 - Richard Caton discovered electrical properties of exposed cerebral hemispheres of rabbits and monkeys. • 1924 - German Psychiatrist Hans Berger discovered alpha waves in humans and invented the term “electroencephalogram” • 1950s - Walter Grey Walter developed “EEG topography” - mapping electrical activity of the brain.

  7. Physical Mechanisms • EEGs require electrodes attached to the scalp with sticky gel (dry electrodes are being tested) • Require physical connection to the machine

  8. Electrode Placement • Standard “10-20 System” • Spaced apart 10-20% • Letter for region • F - Frontal Lobe • T - Temporal Lobe • C - Center • O - Occipital Lobe • Number for exact position • Odd numbers - left • Even numbers - right

  9. Electrode Placement • A more detailed view:

  10. Brain “Features” • User must be able to control the output: • use a feature of the continuous EEG output that the user can reliably modify (waves), or • evoke an EEG response with an external stimulus (evoked potential)

  11. Continuous Brain Waves • Generally grouped by frequency: (amplitudes are about 100µV max)

  12. Brain Waves Transformations • wave-form averaging over several trials • auto-adjustment with a known signal • Fourier transforms to detect relative amplitude at different frequencies

  13. Alpha and Beta Waves • Studied since 1920s • Found in Parietal and Frontal Cortex • Relaxed - Alpha has high amplitude • Excited - Beta has high amplitude • So, Relaxed -> Excited means Alpha -> Beta

  14. Mu Waves • Studied since 1930s • Found in Motor Cortex • Amplitude suppressed by Physical Movements, or intent to move physically • (Wolpaw, et al 1991) trained subjects to control the mu rhythm by visualizing motor tasks to move a cursor up and down (1D)

  15. Mu Waves

  16. Mu and Beta Waves • (Wolpaw and McFarland 2004) used a linear combination of Mu and Beta waves to control a 2D cursor. • Weights were learned from the users in real time. • Cursor moved every 50ms (20 Hz) • 92% “hit rate” in average 1.9 sec

  17. Mu and Beta Waves • How do you handle more complex tasks? • Finite Automata, such as this from (Millán et al, 2004)

  18. BCI signals for communication • Evoked potentials (EP) • = el.response to presentation of a stimulus (event related potentials –ERP) • ERP components, e.g. P300, N100 are characterized by amplitude (P-positive, N-neg) and latency (ms after stimuli) • Event related synchronization (ERS or ERD) • Some events (performing mental tasks as arithmetic, object rotation, motor imaginery) modulate power of the current EEG signal • This can be utilized (ERD-decrease of signal)

  19. P300 (Evoked Potentials) • occurs in response to a significant but low-probability event • 300 milliseconds after the onset of the target stimulus • found in 1965 by (Sutton et al., 1965; Walter, 1965) • focus specific

  20. P300 Experiments • Farwell and Donchin, 1988 • The user can select a command (BCI looks for P300 signals when the desired command flashed • 95% accuracy at 1 character per 26s

  21. P300 (Evoked Potentials) • (Polikoff, et al 1995) allowed users to control a cursor by flashing control points in 4 different directions • Each sample took 4 seconds • Threw out samples masked by muscle movements (such as blinks)

  22. (Polikoff, et al 1995) Results • 50% accuracy at ~1/4 Hz • 80% accuracy at ~1/30 Hz

  23. VEP - Visual Evoked Potential • Detects changes in the visual cortex • Similar in use to P300 • Close to the scalp

  24. Model Generalization (time) • EEG models so far haven’t adjusted to fit the changing nature of the user. • (Curran et al 2004) have proposed using Adaptive Filtering algorithms to deal with this.

  25. Model Generalization (users) • Many manual adjustments still must be made for each person (such as EEG placement) • Currently, users have to adapt to the system rather than the system adapting to the users. • Current techniques learn a separate model for each user.

  26. Model Generalization (users) • (Müller 2004) applied typical machine learning techniques to reduce the need for training data. • Support Vector Machines (SVM) and Regularized Linear Discriminant Analysis (RLDA) • This is only the beginning of applying machine learning to BCIs!

  27. BCI Examples - Prostheses • (Wolpaw and McFarland 2004) allowed a user to move a cursor around a 2 dimensional screen • (Millán, et al. 2004) allowed a user to move a robot around the room.

  28. BCI Examples - Music • 1987 - Lusted and Knapp demonstrated an EEG controlling a music synthesizer in real time. • Atau Tanaka (Stanford Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics) uses it in performances to switch synthesizer functions while generating sound using EMG.

  29. In Review… • Brain Computer Interfaces • Allow those with poor muscle control to communicate and control physical devices • High Precision (can be used reliably) • Requires somewhat invasive sensors • Requires extensive training (poor generalization) • Low bandwidth (today 24 bits/minute, or at most 5 characters/minute)

  30. Future Advances • Improving physical methods for gathering EEGs • Improving generalization • Improving knowledge of how to interpret waves (not just the “new phrenology”) • Interesting to see: • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7lmJe_EXEU

  31. References • http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/toby/research/bci/richard.seabrook.brain.computer.interface.txt • http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2004/concert_call.htm • http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/1020.html • http://www.biocontrol.com/eeg.html • http://www.asel.udel.edu/speech/Spch_proc/eeg.html • Toward a P300-based Computer Interface James B. Polikoff, H. Timothy Bunnell, & Winslow J. Borkowski Jr.Applied Science and Engineering LaboratoriesAlfred I. Dupont Institute • Various papers from PASCAL 2004 • Original Paper on Evoked Potential: https://access.web.cmu.edu/http://www.jstor.org/cgi-bin/jstor/viewitem/00368075/ap003886/00a00500/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/Results%3fQuery%3dEvoked-Potential%2bPotential%2bCorrelates%2bof%2bStimulus%2bUncertainty%26hp%3d25%26so%3dnull%26si%3d1%26mo%3dbs&frame=noframe&dpi=3&currentResult=00368075%2bap003886%2b00a00500%2b0%2c07&userID=80020b32@cmu.edu/01cce4403532f102af429e95&backcontext=page

  32. Invasive BCIs • Have traditionally provided much finer control than non-invasive EEGs (no longer true?) • May have ethical/practical issues • (Chapin et al. 1999) trained rats to control a “robot arm” to fetch water • (Wessberg et al. 2000) allowed primates to accurately control a robot arm in 3 dimensions in real time.

More Related