Adaptive CSP for User Independence in Mi-Bci Paradigm for Upper Limb Stroke Rehabilitation

Abstract

A 3-class motor imagery (MI) Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) system, that implements subject adaptation with short to non-existing calibration sessions is proposed. The proposed adaptive common spatial patterns (ACSP) algorithm was tested on two datasets (an open source data set (4-class MI), and an in-house data set (3-class MI)). Results show that when long calibration data is available, the ACSP performs only slightly better (4%) than the CSP, but for short calibration sessions, the ACSP significantly improved the performance (up to 4-fold). An investigation into class separability of the in-house data set was performed and was concluded that the "Pinch"movement was more easily discriminated than "Grasp" and "Elbow Flexion". The proposed paradigm proved feasible and provided insights to help choose the motor tasks leading to best results in potential real-life applications. The ACSP enabled a successful semi user independent scenario and showed potential to be a tool towards an improved, personalized stroke rehabilitation protocol.

Global Cortical Network Distinguishes Motor Imagination of the Left and Right Foot

“…Active training with autonomous involvement has been made possible by monitoring electromyography (EMG) signals in the affected foot. Recent interest in upper limb rehabilitation has included electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring, including the proposal of several motor imagery (MI) based rehabilitation systems [6], [7], [8]. A clinical study showed substantial improvement of arm motor function in an MI rehabilitation group, compared to a passive control group [9].…”

Analysis of Minimal Channel Electroencephalography for Wearable Brain–Computer Interface

“…According to Figure 14, interpolation provided comparable classification accuracies between the measured and combined groups of electrodes in one participant (S6), while the interpolated groups of electrodes showed poorer classification accuracies for most participants. According to other studies [34,36,38,81], ERD/ERS phenomena are participantspecific, whereby phenomena can occur in different positions and different frequencies for each participant. This may be explained by the corresponding brain area that contains meaningful information for classifying the left-and right-hand opening/closing task in participant S6 that was not part of the interpolated channels.…”