Comparative Evaluation for PCA and ICA on Tongue-Machine Interface Using Glossokinetic Potential Responses

The tongue-machine interface (TMI) between the paralyzed person and computer makes it possible tomanage assistive technologies. Severely disabled individuals caused by traumatic brain and spinal cordinjuries need continuous help to carry out everyday routines. The cranial nerve is arisen directly fromthe brain to connect the tongue that is one of the last affected organs in neuromuscular disorders.Besides, the tongue has highly capable of mobility located in the oral cavity, which also providescosmetic advantages. These crucial skills make the tongue to be an odd organ employed in the humanmachine interfaces. In this study, it was aimed to investigate 1-D extraction and develop a novel tonguemachine interface using the glossokinetic potential responses (GKPs). This rarely used bio-signs areoccurred by contacting the buccal walls with the tip of the tongue in the oral cavity. Our study, named asGKP-based TMI measuring the glossokinetic potential responses over the scalp, may serve paralyzedpersons an unobtrusive, natural, and reliable communication channel. In this work, 8 males and 2females, aged between 22-34 naive healthy subjects, have participated. Linear discriminant analysis andsupport vector machine were implemented with mean-absolute value and power spectral density featureextraction process. Moreover, independent component analysis (ICA) and principal component analysis(PCA) were used to evaluate the reduced dimension of the data set for GKPs in machine learningalgorithms. Furthermore, the highest result was obtained at 97.03%.

PDF

___

1. Huo, X, Ghovanloo, M. 2012. Tongue Drive: A wireless tongueoperated means for people with severe disabilities to communicate their intentions. IEEE Communication Magazine; 50(10):128-135.
2. Andreasen, Struijk, L.N.S. 2006. An inductive tongue computer interface for control of computers and assistive devices. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering; 53(12):2594-2597.
3. Nam, Y, Koo, B, Cichocki, A, Choi, S. 2016 Glossokinetic Potentials for a tongue–machine interface. IEEE Systems, Man, & Cybernetics Magazine; 2(1): 6-13.
4. Nam, Y, Zhao, Q, Cichocki, A, Choi, S. 2012. Tongue-Rudder: A Glossokinetic-Potential-Based tongue–machine interface. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering; 59(1): 290-299.
5. Nam, Y, Koo, B, Cichocki, A, Choi, S. 2014. GOM-Face: GKP, EOG, and EMG-Based multimodal interface with application to humanoid robot control. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering; 61(2):453-462.
6. Tang, H, Beebe, D.J. 2006. An oral tactile interface for blind navigation. IEEE Transaction On Neural Systems & Rehabilitation Engineering; 14(1):116-123.
7. Bao, X, Wang, J, Hu, J. Method of individual identification based on electroencephalogram analysis, International Conference on New Trends in Information and Service Science, 2009, pp 390- 393.
8. Gorur, K. Makine Öğrenmesi Algoritmaları Kullanılarak Glossokinetik Potansiyel Tabanlı Dil-Makine Arayüzü Tasarımı; Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü: Doktora Tezi, Sakarya, 2019.
9. Reuderink, B, Poel, M, Nijholt, A. 2011. The impact of loss of control on movement BCIs. IEEE Transaction On Neural Systems & Rehabilitation Engineering; 19(6):628-637.
10. Rupp, R, Rohm, M, Schneiders, M, Kreilinger, A, Müller-Putz, G.R. 2015. Functional rehabilitation of the paralyzed upper extremity after spinal cord injury by noninvasive hybrid neuroprostheses. Proceedings of the IEEE; 103(6):954-968.
11. Krishnamurthy, G, Ghovanloo, M. Tongue Drive: A tongue operated magnetic sensor based wireless assistive technology for people with severe disabilities, IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 2006, pp 5551-5554.
12. Vaidyanathan, R, Chung, B, Gupta, L, Kook, H, Kota, S., West, J.D. 2007. Tongue-movement communication and control concept for hands-free human–machine interfaces. IEEE Systems, Man, & Cybernetics Magazine; 37(4):533-546.
13. Vigário, R, Särelä, J, Jousmäki, V, Hämäläinen, M., Oja, E. 2000. Independent component approach to the analysis of EEG and MEG recordings. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering; 47(5):589-593.
14. Nam, Y, Bonkon, K, Choi, S. Language-related glossokinetic potentials on scalp, IEEE International conference on systems, Man, and Cybernetics, San Diego, USA, 2014, pp 1063-1067.
15. Jayaram, V, Alamgir, M, Altun, Y, Schölkopf, B, GrosseWentrup, M. 2016. Transfer learning in brain-computer interfaces. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine; 20-31.
16. Kao, J.C, Stavisky, S.D, Sussillo D, Nuyujukian, P, Shenoy K.V. 2014. Information systems opportunities in brain–machine interface decoders. Proceedings of the IEEE; 102(5):666-68.
17. Cerutti, S. 2009. In the Spotlight: Biomedical signal processing. IEEE Reviews In Biomedical Enginering; 2:9-11.
18. Genc, H.M, Cataltepe, Z, Pearson, T. A New PCA/ICA based feature selection method, IEEE Signal Processing and Communations Applications, Eskisehir, Turkey, 2007.
19. Gorur, K, Bozkurt M.R, Bascil M.S, Temurtas F. 2018. Glossokinetic potential based tongue–machine interface for 1-D extraction. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine; 41(2):379-391.
20. Gorur K, Bozkurt M.R, Bascil M.S, Temurtas F. 2018. Glossokinetic potential based tongue–machine interface for 1-D extraction using neural networks, Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering; 38(3):745-759.