title: Comparison of tactile, auditory, and visual modality for brain-computer interface use: a case study with a patient in the locked-in state.
abstract: This paper describes a case study with a patient in the classic locked-in state, who currently has no means of independent communication. Following a user-centered approach, we investigated event-related potentials (ERP) elicited in different modalities for use in brain-computer interface (BCI) systems. Such systems could provide her with an alternative communication channel. To investigate the most viable modality for achieving BCI based communication, classic oddball paradigms (1 rare and 1 frequent stimulus, ratio 1:5) in the visual, auditory and tactile modality were conducted (2 runs per modality). Classifiers were built on one run and tested offline on another run (and vice versa). In these paradigms, the tactile modality was clearly superior to other modalities, displaying high offline accuracy even when classification was performed on single trials only. Consequently, we tested the tactile paradigm online and the patient successfully selected targets without any error. Furthermore, we investigated use of the visual or tactile modality for different BCI systems with more than two selection options. In the visual modality, several BCI paradigms were tested offline. Neither matrix-based nor so-called gaze-independent paradigms constituted a means of control. These results may thus question the gaze-independence of current gaze-independent approaches to BCI. A tactile four-choice BCI resulted in high offline classification accuracies. Yet, online use raised various issues. Although performance was clearly above chance, practical daily life use appeared unlikely when compared to other communication approaches (e.g., partner scanning). Our results emphasize the need for user-centered design in BCI development including identification of the best stimulus modality for a particular user. Finally, the paper discusses feasibility of EEG-based BCI systems for patients in classic locked-in state and compares BCI to other AT solutions that we also tested during the study.
authors.affiliation: Department for Psychology I, Institute for Psychology, University of Würzburg Würzburg, Germany.
authors.forename: Tobias
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kaufmann
authors.forename: Elisa M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Holz
authors.forename: Andrea
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Kübler
keywords: assistive technology; brain-computer interface; end-user testing; locked-in syndrome; tactile auditory and visual modality; user-centered design
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 Feb;124(2):327-38
references.pmid: 22959257
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Oct;118(10):2128-48
references.pmid: 17573239
references.citation: Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1969 Sep;27(3):311-4
references.pmid: 4185662
references.citation: Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1988 Dec;70(6):510-23
references.pmid: 2461285
references.citation: J Neural Eng. 2012 Aug;9(4):045001
references.pmid: 22831893
references.citation: Amyotroph Lateral Scler. 2010 Oct;11(5):449-55
references.pmid: 20583947
references.citation: J Neural Eng. 2013 Jun;10(3):036025
references.pmid: 23685458
references.citation: J Neural Eng. 2012 Apr;9(2):026011
references.pmid: 22333135
references.citation: Front Neurosci. 2011 Aug 22;5:99
references.pmid: 21909321
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2001 May;127(3):358-75
references.pmid: 11393301
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1996 Nov;8(6):551-565
references.pmid: 20740065
references.citation: Behav Brain Funct. 2010 May 28;6:28
references.pmid: 20509913
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2010 Apr;121(4):516-23
references.pmid: 20093075
references.citation: Ergonomics. 2012;55(5):538-51
references.pmid: 22455372
references.citation: J Neural Eng. 2010 Oct;7(5):056013
references.pmid: 20858924
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2009 May;46(3):617-25
references.pmid: 19170946
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 May;124(5):893-900
references.pmid: 23246415
references.citation: J Neural Eng. 2012 Aug;9(4):045002
references.pmid: 22831906
references.citation: Prog Brain Res. 2011;194:27-46
references.pmid: 21867792
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Mar;1157:90-100
references.pmid: 19351359
references.citation: Ergonomics. 2012;55(5):564-80
references.pmid: 22506977
references.citation: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2008 Apr;16(2):121-30
references.pmid: 18403280
references.citation: J Neurol. 1979 Aug;221(2):77-91
references.pmid: 92545
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2009 Jul;120(7):1252-61
references.pmid: 19574091
references.citation: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:4580-3
references.pmid: 22255357
references.citation: Artif Intell Med. 2013 Oct;59(2):111-20
references.pmid: 24080080
references.citation: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2004 Jun;51(6):1034-43
references.pmid: 15188875
references.citation: Int J Psychophysiol. 2012 Mar;83(3):336-41
references.pmid: 22172335
references.citation: J Neural Eng. 2011 Apr;8(2):025003
references.pmid: 21436525
references.citation: Front Neurosci. 2011 Oct 14;5:112
references.pmid: 22016719
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 May;124(5):901-8
references.pmid: 23466266
references.citation: BMJ Open. 2011 Feb 23;1(1):e000039
references.pmid: 22021735
references.citation: Science. 1965 Nov 26;150(3700):1187-8
references.pmid: 5852977
references.citation: J Neural Eng. 2012 Apr;9(2):026018
references.pmid: 22414683
references.citation: J Neural Eng. 2010 Jun;7(3):036003
references.pmid: 20404396
references.citation: Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2011 Jan 1;27(1):69-84
references.pmid: 21278858
references.citation: PLoS One. 2010 Apr 01;5(4):e9813
references.pmid: 20368976
references.citation: J Physiol. 2007 Mar 15;579(Pt 3):621-36
references.pmid: 17234696
references.citation: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:4185-8
references.pmid: 21096889
references.citation: J Neural Eng. 2006 Dec;3(4):299-305
references.pmid: 17124334
references.citation: Clin EEG Neurosci. 2011 Oct;42(4):236-44
references.pmid: 22208121
references.citation: Front Neurosci. 2010 May 06;4:19
references.pmid: 20582261
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Mar;117(3):538-48
references.pmid: 16461003
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2000 Apr;111(4):694-705
references.pmid: 10727921
references.citation: Clin Neurophysiol. 2011 Jun;122(6):1127-36
references.pmid: 21163695
references.citation: Artif Intell Med. 2013 Oct;59(2):99-110
references.pmid: 24080077
references.citation: Front Neurosci. 2012 May 23;6:72
references.pmid: 22833713
references.citation: J Neural Eng. 2011 Jun;8(3):036006
references.pmid: 21474877
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49688
references.pmid: 23189154
references.citation: J Neural Eng. 2011 Oct;8(5):056016
references.pmid: 21934188
references.citation: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:2686-9
references.pmid: 21096199
references.citation: Curr Opin Neurol. 2008 Dec;21(6):634-8
references.pmid: 18989104