Vibrotactile Feedback for Brain-Computer Interface Operation

Abstract

To be correctly mastered, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) need an uninterrupted flow of feedback to the user. This feedback is usually delivered through the visual channel. Our aim was to explore the benefits of vibrotactile feedback during users' training and control of EEG-based BCI applications. A protocol for delivering vibrotactile feedback, including specific hardware and software arrangements, was specified. In three studies with 33 subjects (including 3 with spinal cord injury), we compared vibrotactile and visual feedback, addressing: (I) the feasibility of subjects' training to master their EEG rhythms using tactile feedback; (II) the compatibility of this form of feedback in presence of a visual distracter; (III) the performance in presence of a complex visual task on the same (visual) or different (tactile) sensory channel. The stimulation protocol we developed supports a general usage of the tactors; preliminary experimentations. All studies indicated that the vibrotactile channel can function as a valuable feedback modality with reliability comparable to the classical visual feedback. Advantages of using a vibrotactile feedback emerged when the visual channel was highly loaded by a complex task. In all experiments, vibrotactile feedback felt, after some training, more natural for both controls and SCI users.

References

1. B. E. Stein and M. A. Meredith, The Merging of the Senses, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1993.
2. A. B. Schwartz, X. T. Cui, D. J. Weber, and D. W. Moran, “Brain-controlled interfaces: movement restoration with neural prosthetics,” Neuron, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 205–220, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
3. J. R. Wolpaw, N. Birbaumer, D. J. McFarland, G. Pfurtscheller, and T. M. Vaughan, “Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control,” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 113, no. 6, pp. 767–791, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
4. T. Hinterberger, N. Neumann, M. Pham et al., “A multimodal brain-based feedback and communication system,” Experimental Brain Research, vol. 154, no. 4, pp. 521–526, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
5. M. Pham, T. Hinterberger, N. Neumann et al., “An auditory brain-computer interface based on the self-regulation of slow cortical potentials,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 206–218, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
6. F. Nijboer, A. Furdea, I. Gunst et al., “An auditory brain-computer interface (BCI),” to appear in Journal of Neuroscience Methods. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
7. C. M. Giabbiconi, C. Dancer, R. Zopf, T. Gruber, and M. M. Müller, “Selective spatial attention to left or right hand flutter sensation modulates the steady-state somatosensory evoked potential,” Cognitive Brain Research, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 58–66, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
8. G. R. Müller-Putz, R. Scherer, C. Neuper, and G. Pfurtscheller, “Steady-state somatosensory evoked potentials: suitable brain signals for brain-computer interfaces?” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 30–37, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
9. D. J. McFarland, L. M. McCane, and J. R. Wolpaw, “EEG-based communication and control: short-term role of feedback,” IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 7–11, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
10. C. Neuper, A. Schlogl, and G. Pfurtscheller, “Enhancement of left-right sensorimotor EEG differences during feedback- regulated motor imagery,” Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 373–382, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
11. E. H. Weber, The Sense of Touch, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1978.
12. R. Kuc, “Binaural sonar electronic travel aid provides vibrotactile cues for landmark, reflector motion and surface texture classification,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 1173–1180, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
13. B. L. Richardson and M. A. Symmons, “Vibrotactile devices for the deaf: are they out of touch?” The Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology. Supplement, vol. 166, pp. 458–461, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
14. R. W. Cholewiak and A. A. Collins, “Vibrotactile localization on the arm: effects of place, space, and age,” Perception and Psychophysics, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 1058–1077, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
15. S. A. Brewster and L. M. Brown, “Non-visual information display using tactons,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '04), pp. 787–788, Vienna, Austria, April 2004. View at: Google Scholar
16. L. M. Brown, S. A. Brewster, and H. C. Purchase, “A first investigation into the effectiveness of tactons,” in Proceedings of the 1st Joint Eurohaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (WHC '05), vol. 00, pp. 167–176, Pisa, Italy, March 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
17. P. J. Green, “Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination,” Biometrika, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 711–732, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
18. P. McCullaghJ and A. Nelder, Generalized Linear Models, Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1989.
19. G. Schalk, D. J. McFarland, T. Hinterberger, N. Birbaumer, and J. R. Wolpaw, “BCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1034–1043, 2004. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2007 Febo Cincotti et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.