Selective attention: SSVEP

Selective attention: SSVEP Herrmann et al, Exp. Brain Research 2001

SSVEP 6 Hz 15 Hz Steady state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) BCI (Kelly et al., 2005)

SSVEP Data from an SSVEP BCI using 6 and 15 Hz checkerboxes (Allison et al., 2008)

SSVEP – IAT Bremen SSVEP spelling system 13 14 15 16 17

SSVEP – IAT Bremen

CeBIT 2008 BCI performance by age and gender.

CeBIT 2008 Replies to post – test questionnaire items by age.

Conventional BCI View Why use a BCI if you’re healthy? BCIs: • Only provide communication. • Provide the same information available via conventional interfaces. • Are exclusive interfaces. • Thus are of no practical value to people who can otherwise communicate. • Will not attain wider adoption without dramatic improvements in information transfer rate (ITR).

Conventional BCI View Replacing conventional interfaces for conventional users in conventional settings. The future of BCIs is not Keanu Reeves.

Emerging User Goals Replacing conventional interfaces for disabled users in conventional settings. * BOTHfor communication and rehab. Replacing conventional interfaces for conventional users in specificsettings. Supplementing conventional interfaces.

Emerging User Groups • Rehabilitation: stroke, autism, attention • Less disabled users • Healthy users • Gamers • Surgeons, drivers, soldiers, mechanics • Lazy people

BCI Stroke Rehabilitation

BCI Autism Rehabilitation UCSDnews.ucsd.edu

Consumer games

New User Groups: Who and When? Moderately disabled Eager healthy Mainstream healthy Schalk (2008)

Induced Disability • Bayliss et al (2000, 2003) – for drivers, household control • Middendorf et al (2000) – for pilots • Pineda et al (2003), Scherer (2007) – virtual navigation • Trejo et al (2006), Millan (2006) – for astronauts • Also cellphone users, mechanics, surgeons, soldiers • And (sadly) disability by laziness: remote control or cellphone users Trejo et al (2006) Scherer et al (2007)

BCI Limitations • BCIs have poor information throughput (ITR)! • BCIs may require bulky equipment and/or surgery. • BCIs may work poorly in realworld environments. • BCIs are harder to use than other interfaces. • BCIs may not work with everyone. • BCIs may require training. • BCIs are expensive. • BCIs are unsupported by common software. • BCIs are unfashionable (to tasteless people). • BCIs are unknown or scary to the general public. • BCIs are exclusive interfaces.

BCI Limitations • BCIs have poor information throughput (ITR)! • Some BCIs require bulky equipment and/or surgery. • Some BCIs work poorly in realworld environments. • Some BCIs are harder to use than other interfaces. • Some BCIs do not work with everyone. • Some BCIs require training. • Some BCIs are expensive. • Most BCIs are unsupported by common software. • BCIs are becoming more wearable and fashionable. • BCIs are becoming more popular and respected. • Are BCIs exclusive interfaces?

BCI Advantages • Better ITR than an unavailable interface • That requires impractical hardware • That cannot be easily used • That could never provide the same information • BCIs may be easier to use than other interfaces • More portable, accessible, or convenient in real world settings • Induced disability is major, even from laziness (TV remote control) • More natural and intuitive • Less training • BCIs are the only interface capable of total privacy • BCIs may be faster than other interfaces • BCIs may seem more novel or fun • BCIs might supplement other interfaces (hybrid BCI)

Key Factors Cost (financial, help, expertise, training, invasiveness, time, attention, fatigue) Throughput (vocabulary, accuracy, speed, latency, effective throughput) Software and Hardware Utility (support, flexibility, reliability, illiteracy) Integration (functional, distraction quotient, hybrid/combined BCIs, usability) Appearance (cosmesis, style, media, advertising) Key BCI factors

Key Factors Cost (financial, help, expertise, training, invasiveness, time, attention, fatigue) Throughput (vocabulary, accuracy, speed, latency, effective throughput) Software and Hardware Utility (support, flexibility, reliability, illiteracy) Integration (functional, distraction quotient, hybrid/combined BCIs, usability) Appearance (cosmesis, style, media, advertising) BCI Technologies Sensors Cognemes Side Effects Related Technologies Electronics Signal Processing HCI Cognitive Neurosci. Communications Medicine Psychology Manufacturing Wearable Computing ExG Sensors

Future directions “Future progress hinges on … recognition that BCI development is an interdisciplinary problem, involving neurobiology, psychology, engineering, mathematics, computer science, and clinical rehabilitation…” – Wolpaw et al., 2002. Communications, linguistics, HCI, and human factors are also important.

Acknowledgements Thanks to Chris Agocs, Jacqueline Boccanfuso, Ben Chi, Adriane Davis, Umang Dua, Bernhard Graimann, Axel Graeser, David Leland, Thorsten Lueth, Luke McCampbell, Dennis McFarland, Melody Moore Jackson, Jaime Pineda, John Polich, Samir Ramji, Gerv Schalk, and Diana Valbuena for help with work presented here. Thanks to my colleagues in the BCI community! Attendees of the BCI conference in New York

Websites with more info www.bci-info.org http://www.cis.gsu.edu/brainlab/ bci.ucsd.edu www.cyberkineticsinc.com www.neuralsignals.com Additional videos are available from the Wolpaw lab: www.bciresearch.org More videos from the Pfurtscheller lab: http://bci.tugraz.at/movies.html Other BCI websites are easy to find online. The 60 Minutes video shown on 2 November is easy to find on the CBS site. Please contact the author for recent BCI articles, updates on a summer 2009 class on BCIs or Cog Sci 17, specific references for articles or other materials: allison@iat.uni-bremen.de

Thank you That´s all, folks!

Selective attention: SSVEP