A screening protocol incorporating brain-computer interface feature matching considerations for augmentative and alternative communication

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The use of standardized screening protocols may inform brain-computer interface (BCI) research procedures to help maximize BCI performance outcomes and provide foundational information for clinical translation. Therefore, in this study we developed and evaluated a new BCI screening protocol incorporating cognitive, sensory, motor and motor imagery tasks. Methods: Following development, BCI screener outcomes were compared to the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Cognitive Behavioral Screen (ALS-CBS), and ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALS-FRS) for twelve individuals with a neuromotor disorder. Results: Scores on the cognitive portion of the BCI screener demonstrated limited variability, indicating all participants possessed core BCI-related skills. When compared to the ALS-CBS, the BCI screener was able to modestly discriminate possible cognitive difficulties that are likely to influence BCI performance. In addition, correlations between the motor imagery section of the screener and ALS-CBS and ALS-FRS were non-significant, suggesting the BCI screener may provide information not captured on other assessment tools. Additional differences were found between motor imagery tasks, with greater self-ratings on first-person explicit imagery of familiar tasks compared to unfamiliar/generic BCI tasks. Conclusion: The BCI screener captures factors likely relevant for BCI, which has value for guiding person-centered BCI assessment across different devices to help inform BCI trials.

KEYWORDS:

• Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
• assessment
• augmentative and alternative communication
• Brain-computer interface
• motor imagery

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank; Nancy Brady, Jeremy Burnison, Susan Fager, Lindsey Heidrick, Michelle Kinsella, Alana Mantie-Kozlowski, Caitlin Masterson, Betts Peters, Jason Rucker, and Jeffrey Searl, for their assistance in the development of this screening protocol. In addition to Anthony Pitt for graphics used in the object rotation task. This work was supported in part by the University of Kansas New Faculty Research Fund and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation New Century Scholars Research Grant

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

¹ Items 8A, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8G, 8K and 8L are included in the Western Aphasia Battery.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation [New Century Scholars Research Grant] and University of Kansas [New Faculty General Research Fund].