IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1004288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Encoder-Decoder Optimization for Brain-Computer Interfaces

Author

Listed:
  • Josh Merel
  • Donald M Pianto
  • John P Cunningham
  • Liam Paninski

Abstract

Neuroprosthetic brain-computer interfaces are systems that decode neural activity into useful control signals for effectors, such as a cursor on a computer screen. It has long been recognized that both the user and decoding system can adapt to increase the accuracy of the end effector. Co-adaptation is the process whereby a user learns to control the system in conjunction with the decoder adapting to learn the user's neural patterns. We provide a mathematical framework for co-adaptation and relate co-adaptation to the joint optimization of the user's control scheme ("encoding model") and the decoding algorithm's parameters. When the assumptions of that framework are respected, co-adaptation cannot yield better performance than that obtainable by an optimal initial choice of fixed decoder, coupled with optimal user learning. For a specific case, we provide numerical methods to obtain such an optimized decoder. We demonstrate our approach in a model brain-computer interface system using an online prosthesis simulator, a simple human-in-the-loop pyschophysics setup which provides a non-invasive simulation of the BCI setting. These experiments support two claims: that users can learn encoders matched to fixed, optimal decoders and that, once learned, our approach yields expected performance advantages.Author Summary: Brain-computer interfaces are systems which allow a user to control a device in their environment via their neural activity. The system consists of hardware used to acquire signals from the brain of the user, algorithms to decode the signals, and some effector in the world that the user will be able to control, such as a cursor on a computer screen. When the user can see the effector under control, the system is closed-loop, such that the user can learn based on discrepancies between intended and actual kinematic outcomes. During training sessions where the user has specified objectives, the decoding algorithm can be updated as well based on discrepancies between what the user is supposed to be doing and what was decoded. When both the user and the decoding algorithm are simultaneously co-adapting, performance can improve. We propose a mathematical framework which contextualizes co-adaptation as a joint optimization of the user’s control scheme and the decoding algorithm, and we relate co-adaptation to optimal, fixed (non-adaptive) choices of decoder. We use simulation and human psychophysics experiments intended to model the BCI setting to demonstrate the utility of this approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Josh Merel & Donald M Pianto & John P Cunningham & Liam Paninski, 2015. "Encoder-Decoder Optimization for Brain-Computer Interfaces," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1004288
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004288
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004288&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004288?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick T. Sadtler & Kristin M. Quick & Matthew D. Golub & Steven M. Chase & Stephen I. Ryu & Elizabeth C. Tyler-Kabara & Byron M. Yu & Aaron P. Batista, 2014. "Neural constraints on learning," Nature, Nature, vol. 512(7515), pages 423-426, August.
    2. Mark M. Churchland & John P. Cunningham & Matthew T. Kaufman & Justin D. Foster & Paul Nuyujukian & Stephen I. Ryu & Krishna V. Shenoy, 2012. "Neural population dynamics during reaching," Nature, Nature, vol. 487(7405), pages 51-56, July.
    3. Christopher M. Harris & Daniel M. Wolpert, 1998. "Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 394(6695), pages 780-784, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Josh Merel & David Carlson & Liam Paninski & John P Cunningham, 2016. "Neuroprosthetic Decoder Training as Imitation Learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-24, May.
    2. Han-Lin Hsieh & Maryam M Shanechi, 2018. "Optimizing the learning rate for adaptive estimation of neural encoding models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-34, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benjamin R Cowley & Matthew A Smith & Adam Kohn & Byron M Yu, 2016. "Stimulus-Driven Population Activity Patterns in Macaque Primary Visual Cortex," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-31, December.
    2. Sravani Kondapavulur & Stefan M. Lemke & David Darevsky & Ling Guo & Preeya Khanna & Karunesh Ganguly, 2022. "Transition from predictable to variable motor cortex and striatal ensemble patterning during behavioral exploration," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Tanner C Dixon & Christina M Merrick & Joni D Wallis & Richard B Ivry & Jose M Carmena, 2021. "Hybrid dedicated and distributed coding in PMd/M1 provides separation and interaction of bilateral arm signals," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-35, November.
    4. Svenja Melbaum & Eleonora Russo & David Eriksson & Artur Schneider & Daniel Durstewitz & Thomas Brox & Ilka Diester, 2022. "Conserved structures of neural activity in sensorimotor cortex of freely moving rats allow cross-subject decoding," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Ege Altan & Sara A Solla & Lee E Miller & Eric J Perreault, 2021. "Estimating the dimensionality of the manifold underlying multi-electrode neural recordings," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-23, November.
    6. Shogo Yonekura & Yasuo Kuniyoshi, 2017. "Bodily motion fluctuation improves reaching success rate in a neurophysical agent via geometric-stochastic resonance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Shih-Wei Wu & Maria F Dal Martello & Laurence T Maloney, 2009. "Sub-Optimal Allocation of Time in Sequential Movements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Max Berniker & Megan K O’Brien & Konrad P Kording & Alaa A Ahmed, 2013. "An Examination of the Generalizability of Motor Costs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    9. Sanaya N. Shroff & Eric Lowet & Sudiksha Sridhar & Howard J. Gritton & Mohammed Abumuaileq & Hua-An Tseng & Cyrus Cheung & Samuel L. Zhou & Krishnakanth Kondabolu & Xue Han, 2023. "Striatal cholinergic interneuron membrane voltage tracks locomotor rhythms in mice," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Shan Yu & Andreas Klaus & Hongdian Yang & Dietmar Plenz, 2014. "Scale-Invariant Neuronal Avalanche Dynamics and the Cut-Off in Size Distributions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    11. Ian S Howard & David W Franklin, 2015. "Neural Tuning Functions Underlie Both Generalization and Interference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-21, June.
    12. Lionel Rigoux & Emmanuel Guigon, 2012. "A Model of Reward- and Effort-Based Optimal Decision Making and Motor Control," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-13, October.
    13. Yanhao Ren & Qiang Luo & Wenlian Lu, 2023. "Synchronization Analysis of Linearly Coupled Systems with Signal-Dependent Noises," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, May.
    14. Pierre O. Boucher & Tian Wang & Laura Carceroni & Gary Kane & Krishna V. Shenoy & Chandramouli Chandrasekaran, 2023. "Initial conditions combine with sensory evidence to induce decision-related dynamics in premotor cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-28, December.
    15. Jonathan Eden & Mario Bräcklein & Jaime Ibáñez & Deren Yusuf Barsakcioglu & Giovanni Di Pino & Dario Farina & Etienne Burdet & Carsten Mehring, 2022. "Principles of human movement augmentation and the challenges in making it a reality," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Adrian M Haith & David M Huberdeau & John W Krakauer, 2015. "Hedging Your Bets: Intermediate Movements as Optimal Behavior in the Context of an Incomplete Decision," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, March.
    17. Christopher J Hasson & Zhaoran Zhang & Masaki O Abe & Dagmar Sternad, 2016. "Neuromotor Noise Is Malleable by Amplifying Perceived Errors," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-28, August.
    18. Seth W. Egger & Stephen G. Lisberger, 2022. "Neural structure of a sensory decoder for motor control," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Ashesh Vasalya & Gowrishankar Ganesh & Abderrahmane Kheddar, 2018. "More than just co-workers: Presence of humanoid robot co-worker influences human performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Nir Even-Chen & Blue Sheffer & Saurabh Vyas & Stephen I Ryu & Krishna V Shenoy, 2019. "Structure and variability of delay activity in premotor cortex," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1004288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.