This work presents a comparison between two methods for spatial feature extraction applied on a system to recognize shoulder flexion/extension motor imagery (SMI) tasks to convey on-line control commands towards a 4 degrees-of-freedom (DoF) upper-limb robotic exoskeleton. Riemannian geometry and Common Spatial Pattern (CSP) are applied on the filtered EEG for spatial feature extraction, which later are used by the Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) classifier for motor imagery (MI) recognition. Three bipolar EEG channels were used on six healthy subjects to acquire our database, composed of two classes: rest state and shoulder flexion/extension MI. Our system achieved a mean accuracy (ACC) of 75.12% applying Riemannian, with the highest performance for Subject S01 (ACC = 89.68%, Kappa = 79.37%, true positive rate (TPR) = 87.50%, and FPR < 8.13%). In contrast, for CSP, a mean ACC of 66.29% was achieved. These findings suggest that unsupervised methods for feature extraction, such as Riemannian geometry, can be suitable for shoulder flexion/extension MI to command an upper-limb robotic exoskeleton.
Riemannian geometry Common Spatial Pattern Brain-computer interface Motor imagery Upper limb Robotic exoskeleton Shoulder movement intention
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors would like to thank the Medical Biophysics Center (Centro de Biofísica Médica) of Cuba, UFES/Brazil, and the Belgian Development Cooperation, through VLIR-UO (Flemish Interuniversity Council-University Cooperation for Development), in the context of the Institutional University Cooperation program with the University of Oriente for supporting this research.
Lotte, F., et al.: A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces: a 10 year update. J. Neural Eng. 15(3), 031005 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolpaw, J., Wolpaw, E.W.: Brain-Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice. OUP, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfurtscheller, G., Da Silva, F.L.: Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles. Clin. Neurophysiol. 110(11), 1842–1857 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ang, K.K., et al.: A large clinical study on the ability of stroke patients to use an EEG-based motor imagery brain-computer interface. Clin. EEG Neurosci. 42(4), 253–258 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soekadar, S.R., et al.: ERD-based online brain–machine interfaces (BMI) in the context of neurorehabilitation: optimizing BMI learning and performance. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 19(5), 542–549 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, T., et al.: Brain-computer interface with somatosensory feedback improves functional recovery from severe hemiplegia due to chronic stroke. Front. Neuroeng. 7, 19 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimbert, S., et al.: Can a subjective questionnaire be used as brain-computer interface performance predictor? Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12, 529 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuper, C., et al.: Motor imagery and action observation: modulation of sensorimotor brain rhythms during mental control of a brain–computer interface. Clin. Neurophysiol. 120(2), 239–247 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, Z.-C., et al.: Classification of EEG-based single-trial motor imagery tasks using a B-CSP method for BCI. Front. Inf. Technol. Electron. Eng. 20, 1087–1098 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ang, K.K., Guan, C.: Brain–computer interface for neurorehabilitation of upper limb after stroke. Proc. IEEE 103(6), 944–953 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidaurre, C., et al.: A fully on-line adaptive BCI. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 53(6), 1214–1219 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osuagwu, B.C., et al.: Rehabilitation of hand in subacute tetraplegic patients based on brain computer interface and functional electrical stimulation: a randomised pilot study. J. Neural Eng. 13(6), 065002 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, R., et al.: Toward self-paced brain–computer communication: navigation through virtual worlds. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 55(2), 675–682 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lou, B., et al.: Bipolar electrode selection for a motor imagery based brain–computer interface. J. Neural Eng. 5(3), 342 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, H., et al.: A step-by-step tutorial for a motor imagery–based BCI. In: Brain–Computer Interfaces Handbook, pp. 445–460. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, Z., Li, C., Sun, S.: Single-trial EEG classification of motor imagery using deep convolutional neural networks. Opt.-Int. J. Light. Electron Opt. 130, 11–18 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar