Improving SSVEP-BCI System Interaction Efficiency: Design Recommendations for Shape of Visual Stimuli and Number of Auxiliary Stimuli

Niu, Yafeng; Zhou, Zhaozhe; Li, Zhiyuan; Wang, Jiahao; Wu, Jinchun; Yang, Wenjun; Xue, Cheng

doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2188540

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper reviews 69 articles that focus on the stimulus parameters for SSVEP BCI by summarizing their results and explaining them. Since flickers above 50-70 Hz are indistinguishable from non-flickering stimuli but can still evoke SSVEP, we propose the flicker-free band, ranging from 60 to 90 Hz, as an extension to the existing division of SSVEP BCI frequencies into the low (1-12 Hz), medium (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) and high band . Additionally, there is no uniform way to measure the visual comfort in SSVEP BCI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found that the circular shape had significantly higher trigger success rates, better task completion times and a better subjective usability and fatigue. By adding up to eight auxiliary stimuli, the task completion time, subjective usability and fatigue was better the more stimuli were presented [18]. Also, in VR, among the various shapes, including sphere, cube and cylinder, the spherical stimulus scored the best in terms of accuracy and the visual stimulus scale [45].…”

Section: Size and Shapementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is especially important, since, depending on luminance or chromaticity, flickering stimuli can cause epileptic responses [14]. The user comfort is mostly measured by a Likert scale that evaluates visual comfort, visual fatigue, flickering feeling or similar attributes [15][16][17][18][19].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Optimal Stimulus Properties for Steady-State Visually Evoked Potential Brain–Computer Interfaces: A Scoping Review

Reitelbach,

Oyibo

2024

MTI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) based on steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEPs) have been well researched due to their easy system configuration, little or no user training and high information transfer rates. To elicit an SSVEP, a repetitive visual stimulus (RVS) is presented to the user. The properties of this RVS (e.g., frequency, luminance) have a significant influence on the BCI performance and user comfort. Several studies in this area in the last one-and-half decades have focused on evaluating different stimulus parameters (i.e., properties). However, there is little research on the synthesis of the existing studies, as the last review on the subject was published in 2010. Consequently, we conducted a scoping review of related studies on the influence of stimulus parameters on SSVEP response and user comfort, analyzed them and summarized the findings considering the physiological and neurological processes associated with BCI performance. In the review, we found that stimulus type, frequency, color contrast, luminance contrast and size/shape of the retinal image are the most important stimulus properties that influence SSVEP response. Regarding stimulus type, frequency and luminance, there is a trade-off between the best SSVEP response quality and visual comfort. Finally, since there is no unified measuring method for visual comfort and a lack of differentiation in the high-frequency band, we proposed a measuring method and a division of the band. In summary, the review highlights which stimulus properties are important to consider when designing SSVEP BCIs. It can be used as a reference point for future research in BCI, as it will help researchers to optimize the design of their SSVEP stimuli.

show abstract