iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24062669
Flaws in current human training protocols for spontaneous Brain-Computer Interfaces: lessons learned from instructional design - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Sep 17:7:568.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00568. eCollection 2013.

Flaws in current human training protocols for spontaneous Brain-Computer Interfaces: lessons learned from instructional design

Affiliations

Flaws in current human training protocols for spontaneous Brain-Computer Interfaces: lessons learned from instructional design

Fabien Lotte et al. Front Hum Neurosci. .

Abstract

While recent research on Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) has highlighted their potential for many applications, they remain barely used outside laboratories. The main reason is their lack of robustness. Indeed, with current BCI, mental state recognition is usually slow and often incorrect. Spontaneous BCI (i.e., mental imagery-based BCI) often rely on mutual learning efforts by the user and the machine, with BCI users learning to produce stable ElectroEncephaloGraphy (EEG) patterns (spontaneous BCI control being widely acknowledged as a skill) while the computer learns to automatically recognize these EEG patterns, using signal processing. Most research so far was focused on signal processing, mostly neglecting the human in the loop. However, how well the user masters the BCI skill is also a key element explaining BCI robustness. Indeed, if the user is not able to produce stable and distinct EEG patterns, then no signal processing algorithm would be able to recognize them. Unfortunately, despite the importance of BCI training protocols, they have been scarcely studied so far, and used mostly unchanged for years. In this paper, we advocate that current human training approaches for spontaneous BCI are most likely inappropriate. We notably study instructional design literature in order to identify the key requirements and guidelines for a successful training procedure that promotes a good and efficient skill learning. This literature study highlights that current spontaneous BCI user training procedures satisfy very few of these requirements and hence are likely to be suboptimal. We therefore identify the flaws in BCI training protocols according to instructional design principles, at several levels: in the instructions provided to the user, in the tasks he/she has to perform, and in the feedback provided. For each level, we propose new research directions that are theoretically expected to address some of these flaws and to help users learn the BCI skill more efficiently.

Keywords: Brain-Computer Interface; electroencephalography; feedback; instructional design; training protocols.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Conventionally, BCI research is focused mostly on the signal processing and algorithms necessary to translate mental patterns into control commands. The user and the context in which he or she is learning to produce mental patterns is, on the other hand, often treated with neglect. We argue that the tasks a user has to perform, the feedback that informs about the performance, and the instructions that enable to perform are equally important and discuss them based on literature from instruction design.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Example of the display of a classic BCI training protocol. Left: An arrow pointing left indicates the learner to imagine a left hand movement. Right: A feedback bar is provided to the learner. The direction and length of this bar indicate the classifier output and thus the recognized mental task. Indeed, the bar extends toward the left for an identified imagined left hand movement, and toward the right for an identified imagined right hand movement.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ainsworth S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learn. Inst. 16, 183–198 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001 - DOI
    1. Allison B., McFarland D., Schalk G., Zheng S., Jackson M., Wolpaw J. (2008). Towards an independent brain-computer interface using steady state visual evoked potentials. Clin. Neurophysiol. 119, 399–408 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.09.121 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allison B., Neuper C. (2010). Could anyone use a BCI? in Brain-Computer Interfaces, eds Tan D. S., Nijholt A. (London: Springer; ), 35–54 10.1007/978-1-84996-272-8_3 - DOI
    1. Arrouët C., Congedo M., Marvie J. E., Lamarche F., Lécuyer A., Arnaldi B. (2005). Open-ViBE: a 3D platform for real-time neuroscience. J. Neurotherapy 9, 3–25 10.1300/J184v09n01_02 - DOI
    1. Barbero-Jimenez A., Grosse-Wentrup M. (2010). Biased feedback in brain-computer interfaces. J. Neuroeng. Rehab. 7, 1–4 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources