P300 Callibration
Posted: 18 Jul 2012, 08:02
Hello!
Our lab finally finished setting up BCI2000 with the BioSemi amplifier.
Yesterday we were able to do our first P300 calibration session as described in the tutorial
http://www.bci2000.org/wiki/index.php/U ... I_Tutorial. During the first run the subject was not able to hit any letters correctly and in the offline analysis the best r^2 correlation values were of magnitude around 10^(-5) and only on 3 channels.
We updated the user specific parameter files and did a second calibration run and then a third. The spelling capabilities increased to 80% and wrong letters were at least either in the same row or in the same column as the target letter.
What made us curious is the fact that in the plots produced by the Offline Analysis the r^2 value increased from 0.003 on the second calibration run to around 0.016 on the third run. In addition, there were higher r^2 values visible for many more channels. So I have a few questions:
1. Is the improvement a result of the subject getting better at producing a p300 response signal to the speller? Or is it purely due to the updated values in the classifier matrix?
2. How do the entered values in the classifier matrix affect the algorithm?
3. How much weight is given to selected channels in comparison to the other channels (128 total)?
4. Does the algorithm pay closer attention only to the specified channels or also surrounding channels (we noticed that the significant channels were clustered in two areas on the back of the scull)?
Any insight people could provide would be highly appreciated.
Another impression that we had was that the runs were getting faster i.e. the stimulus time duration seemed to get shorter (however, we don't have evidence for that).
5. Is that related to the updates in the classifier matrix?
Thank you!
Maja
Our lab finally finished setting up BCI2000 with the BioSemi amplifier.
Yesterday we were able to do our first P300 calibration session as described in the tutorial
http://www.bci2000.org/wiki/index.php/U ... I_Tutorial. During the first run the subject was not able to hit any letters correctly and in the offline analysis the best r^2 correlation values were of magnitude around 10^(-5) and only on 3 channels.
We updated the user specific parameter files and did a second calibration run and then a third. The spelling capabilities increased to 80% and wrong letters were at least either in the same row or in the same column as the target letter.
What made us curious is the fact that in the plots produced by the Offline Analysis the r^2 value increased from 0.003 on the second calibration run to around 0.016 on the third run. In addition, there were higher r^2 values visible for many more channels. So I have a few questions:
1. Is the improvement a result of the subject getting better at producing a p300 response signal to the speller? Or is it purely due to the updated values in the classifier matrix?
2. How do the entered values in the classifier matrix affect the algorithm?
3. How much weight is given to selected channels in comparison to the other channels (128 total)?
4. Does the algorithm pay closer attention only to the specified channels or also surrounding channels (we noticed that the significant channels were clustered in two areas on the back of the scull)?
Any insight people could provide would be highly appreciated.
Another impression that we had was that the runs were getting faster i.e. the stimulus time duration seemed to get shorter (however, we don't have evidence for that).
5. Is that related to the updates in the classifier matrix?
Thank you!
Maja