Limits...
Decoding intention at sensorimotor timescales.

Salvaris M, Haggard P - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: Several Brain Computer Interface applications have used motor imagery of repetitive actions to achieve this goal.These systems are relatively successful, but only if the intention is sustained over a period of several seconds; much longer than the timescales identified in psychophysiological studies for normal preparation for voluntary action.The implications for volition are considered.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
The ability to decode an individual's intentions in real time has long been a 'holy grail' of research on human volition. For example, a reliable method could be used to improve scientific study of voluntary action by allowing external probe stimuli to be delivered at different moments during development of intention and action. Several Brain Computer Interface applications have used motor imagery of repetitive actions to achieve this goal. These systems are relatively successful, but only if the intention is sustained over a period of several seconds; much longer than the timescales identified in psychophysiological studies for normal preparation for voluntary action. We have used a combination of sensorimotor rhythms and motor imagery training to decode intentions in a single-trial cued-response paradigm similar to those used in human and non-human primate motor control research. Decoding accuracy of over 0.83 was achieved with twelve participants. With this approach, we could decode intentions to move the left or right hand at sub-second timescales, both for instructed choices instructed by an external stimulus and for free choices generated intentionally by the participant. The implications for volition are considered.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

ROC AUC of Obey vs Disobey under the Free condition.Aligned to Go cue using a 300 ms window. The black line shows the decoding accuracy achieved when condition labels were randomly reshuffled.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3921113&req=5

pone-0085100-g009: ROC AUC of Obey vs Disobey under the Free condition.Aligned to Go cue using a 300 ms window. The black line shows the decoding accuracy achieved when condition labels were randomly reshuffled.

Mentions: We also compared decoding for free choice trials where participants decided to obey/follow or disobey/countermand the direction cue. Figure 9 shows that both free-choice outcomes could be decoded equally well. Furthermore, the reaction times for the obey and disobey were almost identical (Obey (M = 0.266 s,SD = 0.025): Disobey (M = 0.267, SD = 0.019): t(5) = −0.07, p0.95), suggesting that the fact that they obeyed or disobeyed the directional cue had no affect on the amount of preparation or execution of the motor command.


Decoding intention at sensorimotor timescales.

Salvaris M, Haggard P - PLoS ONE (2014)

ROC AUC of Obey vs Disobey under the Free condition.Aligned to Go cue using a 300 ms window. The black line shows the decoding accuracy achieved when condition labels were randomly reshuffled.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3921113&req=5

pone-0085100-g009: ROC AUC of Obey vs Disobey under the Free condition.Aligned to Go cue using a 300 ms window. The black line shows the decoding accuracy achieved when condition labels were randomly reshuffled.
Mentions: We also compared decoding for free choice trials where participants decided to obey/follow or disobey/countermand the direction cue. Figure 9 shows that both free-choice outcomes could be decoded equally well. Furthermore, the reaction times for the obey and disobey were almost identical (Obey (M = 0.266 s,SD = 0.025): Disobey (M = 0.267, SD = 0.019): t(5) = −0.07, p0.95), suggesting that the fact that they obeyed or disobeyed the directional cue had no affect on the amount of preparation or execution of the motor command.

Bottom Line: Several Brain Computer Interface applications have used motor imagery of repetitive actions to achieve this goal.These systems are relatively successful, but only if the intention is sustained over a period of several seconds; much longer than the timescales identified in psychophysiological studies for normal preparation for voluntary action.The implications for volition are considered.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
The ability to decode an individual's intentions in real time has long been a 'holy grail' of research on human volition. For example, a reliable method could be used to improve scientific study of voluntary action by allowing external probe stimuli to be delivered at different moments during development of intention and action. Several Brain Computer Interface applications have used motor imagery of repetitive actions to achieve this goal. These systems are relatively successful, but only if the intention is sustained over a period of several seconds; much longer than the timescales identified in psychophysiological studies for normal preparation for voluntary action. We have used a combination of sensorimotor rhythms and motor imagery training to decode intentions in a single-trial cued-response paradigm similar to those used in human and non-human primate motor control research. Decoding accuracy of over 0.83 was achieved with twelve participants. With this approach, we could decode intentions to move the left or right hand at sub-second timescales, both for instructed choices instructed by an external stimulus and for free choices generated intentionally by the participant. The implications for volition are considered.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus