1 Selective attention: SSVEP Herrmann et al, Exp. Brain Research 2001

2 Steady state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) BCI (Kelly et al., 2005) SSVEP 6 Hz 15 Hz

3 Data from an SSVEP BCI using 6 and 15 Hz checkerboxes (Allison et al., 2008) SSVEP

4 SSVEP – IAT Bremen SSVEP spelling system

5 SSVEP – IAT Bremen

6 CeBIT 2008 BCI performance by age and gender.

7 CeBIT 2008 Replies to post – test questionnaire items by age.

8 Why use a BCI if you’re healthy? BCIs: Only provide communication. Provide the same information available via conventional interfaces. Are exclusive interfaces. Thus are of no practical value to people who can otherwise communicate. Will not attain wider adoption without dramatic improvements in information transfer rate (ITR). Conventional BCI View

9 Replacing conventional interfaces for conventional users in conventional settings. The future of BCIs is not Keanu Reeves. Conventional BCI View

10 Replacing conventional interfaces for disabled users in conventional settings. * BOTH for communication and rehab. Replacing conventional interfaces for conventional users in specific settings. Supplementing conventional interfaces. Emerging User Goals

11 Rehabilitation: stroke, autism, attention Less disabled users Healthy users  Gamers  Surgeons, drivers, soldiers, mechanics  Lazy people Emerging User Groups

12 BCI Stroke Rehabilitation

13 BCI Autism Rehabilitation UCSDnews.ucsd.edu

14 Consumer games

15 Schalk (2008) Moderately disabled Eager healthy Mainstream healthy New User Groups: Who and When?

16 Bayliss et al (2000, 2003) – for drivers, household control Middendorf et al (2000) – for pilots Pineda et al (2003), Scherer (2007) – virtual navigation Trejo et al (2006), Millan (2006) – for astronauts Also cellphone users, mechanics, surgeons, soldiers And (sadly) disability by laziness: remote control or cellphone users Induced Disability Trejo et al (2006)Scherer et al (2007)

17 BCI Limitations BCIs have poor information throughput (ITR)! BCIs may require bulky equipment and/or surgery. BCIs may work poorly in realworld environments. BCIs are harder to use than other interfaces. BCIs may not work with everyone. BCIs may require training. BCIs are expensive. BCIs are unsupported by common software. BCIs are unfashionable (to tasteless people). BCIs are unknown or scary to the general public. BCIs are exclusive interfaces.

18 BCIs have poor information throughput (ITR)! Some BCIs require bulky equipment and/or surgery. Some BCIs work poorly in realworld environments. Some BCIs are harder to use than other interfaces. Some BCIs do not work with everyone. Some BCIs require training. Some BCIs are expensive. Most BCIs are unsupported by common software. BCIs are becoming more wearable and fashionable. BCIs are becoming more popular and respected. Are BCIs exclusive interfaces? BCI Limitations

19 Better ITR than an unavailable interface  That requires impractical hardware  That cannot be easily used  That could never provide the same information BCIs may be easier to use than other interfaces  More portable, accessible, or convenient in real world settings  Induced disability is major, even from laziness (TV remote control)  More natural and intuitive  Less training BCIs are the only interface capable of total privacy BCIs may be faster than other interfaces BCIs may seem more novel or fun BCIs might supplement other interfaces (hybrid BCI) BCI Advantages

20 Appearance (cosmesis, style, media, advertising) Utility (support, flexibility, reliability, illiteracy) Integration (functional, distraction quotient, hybrid/combined BCIs, usability) Throughput (vocabulary, accuracy, speed, latency, effective throughput) Key Factors Software and Hardware Cost (financial, help, expertise, training, invasiveness, time, attention, fatigue)

21 Electronics Signal Processing Cognitive Neurosci. Communications Medicine Psychology HCI Related Technologies Sensors Cognemes Side Effects BCI Technologies Manufacturing Wearable Computing ExG Sensors Appearance (cosmesis, style, media, advertising) Utility (support, flexibility, reliability, illiteracy) Integration (functional, distraction quotient, hybrid/combined BCIs, usability) Throughput (vocabulary, accuracy, speed, latency, effective throughput) Key Factors Software and Hardware Cost (financial, help, expertise, training, invasiveness, time, attention, fatigue)

22 Electronics Signal Processing Cognitive Neurosci. Communications Medicine Psychology HCI Related Technologies Sensors Cognemes Side Effects BCI Technologies Manufacturing Wearable Computing ExG Sensors Appearance (cosmesis, style, media, advertising) Utility (support, flexibility, reliability, illiteracy) Integration (functional, distraction quotient, hybrid/combined BCIs, usability) Throughput (vocabulary, accuracy, speed, latency, effective throughput) Key Factors Software and Hardware Cost (financial, help, expertise, training, invasiveness, time, attention, fatigue)

23 Electronics Signal Processing Cognitive Neurosci. Communications Medicine Psychology HCI Related Technologies Sensors Cognemes Side Effects BCI Technologies Manufacturing Wearable Computing ExG Sensors Appearance (cosmesis, style, media, advertising) Utility (support, flexibility, reliability, illiteracy) Integration (functional, distraction quotient, hybrid/combined BCIs, usability) Throughput (vocabulary, accuracy, speed, latency, effective throughput) Key Factors Software and Hardware Cost (financial, help, expertise, training, invasiveness, time, attention, fatigue)

24 Electronics Signal Processing Cognitive Neurosci. Communications Medicine Psychology HCI Related Technologies Sensors Cognemes Side Effects BCI Technologies Manufacturing Wearable Computing ExG Sensors Appearance (cosmesis, style, media, advertising) Utility (support, flexibility, reliability, illiteracy) Integration (functional, distraction quotient, hybrid/combined BCIs, usability) Throughput (vocabulary, accuracy, speed, latency, effective throughput) Key Factors Software and Hardware Cost (financial, help, expertise, training, invasiveness, time, attention, fatigue)

25 “Future progress hinges on … recognition that BCI development is an interdisciplinary problem, involving neurobiology, psychology, engineering, mathematics, computer science, and clinical rehabilitation…” – Wolpaw et al., Communications, linguistics, HCI, and human factors are also important. Future directions

26 Thanks to Chris Agocs, Jacqueline Boccanfuso, Ben Chi, Adriane Davis, Umang Dua, Bernhard Graimann, Axel Graeser, David Leland, Thorsten Lueth, Luke McCampbell, Dennis McFarland, Melody Moore Jackson, Jaime Pineda, John Polich, Samir Ramji, Gerv Schalk, and Diana Valbuena for help with work presented here. Thanks to my colleagues in the BCI community! Attendees of the BCI conference in New York Acknowledgements

bci.ucsd.edu Additional videos are available from the Wolpaw lab: More videos from the Pfurtscheller lab: Other BCI websites are easy to find online. The 60 Minutes video shown on 2 November is easy to find on the CBS site. Please contact the author for recent BCI articles, updates on a summer 2009 class on BCIs or Cog Sci 17, specific references for articles or other materials: Websites with more info

28 Thank you That´s all, folks!