A Comparison of Intention Estimation Methods for Decoder Calibration in Intracortical Brain-Computer Interfaces IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING Willett, F. R., Murphy, B. A., Young, D., Memberg, W. D., Blabe, C. H., Pandarinath, C., Franco, B., Saab, J., Walter, B. L., Sweet, J. A., Miller, J. P., Henderson, J. M., Shenoy, K. V., Simeral, J. D., Jarosiewicz, B., Hochberg, L. R., Kirsch, R. F., Ajiboye, A. 2018; 65 (9): 2066–78


Recent reports indicate that making better assumptions about the user's intended movement can improve the accuracy of decoder calibration for intracortical brain-computer interfaces. Several methods now exist for estimating user intent, including an optimal feedback control model, a piecewise-linear feedback control model, ReFIT, and other heuristics. Which of these methods yields the best decoding performance?Using data from the BrainGate2 pilot clinical trial, we measured how a steady-state velocity Kalman filter decoder was affected by the choice of intention estimation method. We examined three separate components of the Kalman filter: dimensionality reduction, temporal smoothing, and output gain (speed scaling).The decoder's dimensionality reduction properties were largely unaffected by the intention estimation method. Decoded velocity vectors differed by <5% in terms of angular error and speed vs. target distance curves across methods. In contrast, the smoothing and gain properties of the decoder were greatly affected (> 50% difference in average values). Since the optimal gain and smoothing properties are task-specific (e.g. lower gains are better for smaller targets but worse for larger targets), no one method was better for all tasks.Our results show that, when gain and smoothing differences are accounted for, current intention estimation methods yield nearly equivalent decoders and that simple models of user intent, such as a position error vector (target position minus cursor position), perform comparably to more elaborate models. Our results also highlight that simple differences in gain and smoothing properties have a large effect on online performance and can confound decoder comparisons.

View details for DOI 10.1109/TBME.2017.2783358

View details for Web of Science ID 000442349500017

View details for PubMedID 29989927

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC6043406