Cited by 144EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyTactile and Sensory Interactions

Online use of error-related potentials in healthy users and people with severe motor impairment increases performance of a P300-BCI

Spüler, Martin, Bensch, Michael, Kleih, Sonja, Rosenstiel, Wolfgang, Bogdan, Martin, Kübler, Andrea·2012·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

Objective To investigate whether error-related potentials can be used to increase information transfer rate of a P3 brain-computer interface (BCI) in healthy and motor-impaired individuals. Methods Extraction and classification of the error-related potential was performed offline on data recorded from six amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients. An online study with 17 healthy and six motor impaired participants followed, using a modified P3 speller to provide explicit feedback of spelled letters. On recognition of error-related potentials, the interface informed users that the incorrect letter was automatically deleted. Results The offline cross-validation estimate of P3 speller data of six ALS patients increased bit rate by 0.44 bit/trial. During online copy spelling, the participants increased their bit rate by 0.52 bit/trial with the error correction system (ECS). Some participants performed free spelling and were able to increase their bit rate. Finally, we demonstrated that healthy participants could increase their bit rate by using a classifier pre-trained on other users' data. Conclusions Error-related potentials as a secondary source of information can be used to increase overall bit rate in a P3 BCI. Significance The method should be made available to any patient using the P3 BCI for communication.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinph.2011.11.082

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spüler, M., Bensch, M., Kleih, S., Rosenstiel, W., Bogdan, M., & Kübler, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Spüler, Martin
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
123
Issue
7
Pages
1328-1337
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2141840333
Cited by
144
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Commission
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
error-related potentials, information transfer rate, motor impairment, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, error correction, online feedback
MeSH terms
Adult, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Brain Mapping, Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Electrodes, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Online Systems, User-Computer Interface, Reproducibility of Results, Case-Control Studies, Event-Related Potentials, P300, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Motor Skills Disorders

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