Cited by 570EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyTactile and Sensory Interactions

A novel P300-based brain–computer interface stimulus presentation paradigm: Moving beyond rows and columns

Open access
Townsend, G., LaPallo, B.K., Boulay, C.B., Krusienski, D.J., Frye, G.E., Hauser, C.K., Schwartz, N.E., Vaughan, T.M. +2 more·2010·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

Objective An electroencephalographic brain-computer interface (BCI) can provide a non-muscular means of communication for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or other neuromuscular disorders. We present a novel P300-based BCI stimulus presentation - the checkerboard paradigm (CBP). CBP performance is compared to that of the standard row/column paradigm (RCP) introduced by Farwell and Donchin (1988).Methods Using an 8x9 matrix of alphanumeric characters and keyboard commands, 18 participants used the CBP and RCP in counter-balanced fashion. With approximately 9-12 min of calibration data, we used a stepwise linear discriminant analysis for online classification of subsequent data.Results Mean online accuracy was significantly higher for the CBP, 92%, than for the RCP, 77%. Correcting for extra selections due to errors, mean bit rate was also significantly higher for the CBP, 23 bits/min, than for the RCP, 17 bits/min. Moreover, the two paradigms produced significantly different waveforms. Initial tests with three advanced ALS participants produced similar results. Furthermore, these individuals preferred the CBP to the RCP.Conclusions These results suggest that the CBP is markedly superior to the RCP in performance and user acceptability.Significance The CBP has the potential to provide a substantially more effective BCI than the RCP. This is especially important for people with severe neuromuscular disabilities.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.01.030

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • EEG spellers based on oddball potentials or motor imagery usually achieve 1-5 characters per minute.

    “EEG spellers based on oddball potentials or motor imagery typically achieve 1–5 characters per minute28–32.”

    From High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting (2021) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Discussion (§4.2; page unavailable) reports 4.10 selections/min for a previously studied P300 speller and 4.36 selections/min for this paper’s checkerboard P300 paradigm, both within the claimed range. It does not establish that 1–5 characters/min is typical across EEG spellers or report a rate for motor-imagery spellers. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Allison BZ 2003 P3 or Not P3: Toward a better P300 BCI Ph.D. dissertation Univ. California San Diego, CA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Townsend, G., LaPallo, B. K., Boulay, C. B., Krusienski, D. J., Frye, G. E., Hauser, C. K., Schwartz, N. E., Vaughan, T. M., Wolpaw, J. R., & Sellers, E. W.
Affiliations
  • Algoma University (CA)
  • New York State Department of Health (US)
  • University of North Florida (US)
  • East Tennessee State University (US)
Corresponding author
Sellers, E.W.
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-07
Volume
121
Issue
7
Pages
1109-1120
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158655338
Cited by
570
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 47
FWCI
29.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - East Tennessee State University (East Tennessee State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (EB 00856, R01EB000856)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD030146, HD30146)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
P300, brain-computer interface, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, neuromuscular disorders, communication aids, data rate, linear discriminant analysis, user acceptance
MeSH terms
Brain, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Male, Nervous System Diseases, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, User-Computer Interface, Event-Related Potentials, P300

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review