Emotiv as an Alternative Input Device for the Physically ...Abstract When considering the Emotiv...
Transcript of Emotiv as an Alternative Input Device for the Physically ...Abstract When considering the Emotiv...
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
1
Emotiv as an Alternative Input Device for the Physically Disabled
Julia M. Kester
State University of New York at Oswego
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
2
Abstract
When considering the Emotiv EPOC in terms of a control device, it comes off as a novelty for
the average user. People dream of controlling things with their minds, but a device that takes
time to set up and can be physically draining is not a device for everyday use. However, the
Emotiv EPOC does provide great opportunities for the physically disabled – specifically for
those with upper limb disabilities. Where they may not have been able to move a mouse with
their hands, they can now control the cursor through their head movements and/or thought
patterns. Where they could not type on a keyboard, they are now able to pull up a virtual
keyboard and push keys with the cursor, or create shortcut commands to act as keyboard
commands.
This project will use the Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset to explore the creation of art. My
main focus behind this project is to see how feasible it is to use a headset as an alternative input
device when working in the Adobe Creative Suite environment. Through this project, I aim to
test the Emotiv EPOC headset as an artistic graphic medium option for the physically disabled.
How easy is it to use the headset? How long will it take users to tire mentally, and how long
before physical fatigue sets in? Is it truly a viable alternative to a mouse or a tablet and pen?
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
3
Emotiv EPOC Neuroheadset
Emotiv
The Emotiv EPOC is a neuroheadset that works as a brain controlled interface (BCI).
BCIs are “devices that capture brain transmissions involved in a subject’s intention to act”
(Schwartz et al., 2006). The device has 14 sensors, which interpret signals from a user’s brain to
identify “thoughts, feelings and expressions” (Emotiv, 2012). The headset works through
electroencephalography, or EEG, which is a non-invasive way to read brain activity (Adelsen,
2011). Emotiv is consumer grade; it is a relatively inexpensive BCI device that allows users to
control things with just their mind (Nosowitz, 2011). Primarily targeted at gamers (Adelsen,
2011), the headset offers many opportunities to the non-gaming community as well.
The Emotiv EPOC has four primary features. Using the Affectiv Suite, it can interpret a
user’s emotions – both short term and over an extended period. The headset is able to identify
facial expressions such as smiling and blinking in the Expressiv Suite. Through an internal
gyroscope, the device can measure head movement – tilting and turning. Finally, and most
appealing, the device translates brain patterns into “signals that emulate traditional input
devices,” such as a mouse or keyboard (Emotiv, 2012).
There are many advantages to using the Emotiv headset over other BCI and EEG devices.
Many BCI devices are restrictive due to wiring (Stopczynski et al., 2011); the Emotiv headset,
however, is wireless and therefore offers free range of motion. BCI devices as a whole have the
potential to help the immobile by restoring movement and communication (Schwartz et al.,
2006), and ease of transport and setup will certainly be important in an everyday use setting.
Because the device is so mobile, the headset provides the ability to run inexpensive experiments
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
4
right from home (Adelsen, 2011). Along with this convenience, it allows for a more naturalistic
environment under which to study brain activity, something not readily available with most brain
imaging technology (Stopczynski et al., 2011). It is also important to note Emotiv’s simplicity.
Unlike traditional EEG devices, which achieve electronic signals from the brain via a conductive
paste connecting the sensors to the scalp (Wright, 2010), Emotiv uses felt sensors moistened with
saline solution.
While Emotiv has these advantages, there are many disadvantages as well. Emotiv EPOC
only uses 14 sensors, while many similar devices use four times that amount (Adelsen, 2011).
This results in less data coming in from the brain. Additionally, more powerful devices have a
sample rate of up to 1000Hz, as opposed to the 128Hz that Emotiv runs at (Adelsen, 2011). Apps
are available to users, but only the more expensive developer and research editions of the headset
can work with software outside of Emotiv’s own store. This means that, while there is a device
simulator, consumers have no way of testing or using the physical device if they choose to
develop an application for the headset. Many reviewers of the device mention having trouble
playing even simple games like Pong (Adelsen, 2011). This is probably because users likely
choose to forego full training, as training the brain to certain commands takes a fair amount of
time.
Researchers have applied the Emotiv neuroheadset’s technology in a variety of ways.
Probably the most practical is a mobile app created by a team at the Technical University of
Denmark. The team developed a brain monitoring system that displays brain activity in 3D on a
smartphone (Stopczynski et al., 2011). This application provides both useful information and
high portability. A team in Germany was able to adapt a car so that the driver could control the
car with the headset. Similar to keying commands to a computer, the wearer’s brain activities
EmoChat (Wright, 2010)
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
5
were mapped to the car’s commands (Nosowitz, 2011). While potentially useful to the disabled,
though the Emotiv EPOC needs some work first. The signal sent to the car has a few seconds of
delay, so the brain-car interface is not yet a realistic alternative to the steering wheel (Nosowitz,
2011). Another researcher created a research tool called Experimenter, which allows users to set
up experiments that involve Emotiv. In addition to recording data during the automated
experiments, Experimenter tries to classify and analyze the incoming data online (Adelsen,
2011). A third developer created a messenger application. Body language and tone of voice are
absent from standard instant messaging applications, but it is very important to how humans
communicate. The application, called EmoChat, aims to overcome this limitation by
automatically displaying a visual to the reader as to what the writer/headset wearer is feeling at
that exact point in time (Wright, 2010). One final research team developed an application to
allow users to “think” their way through their contact list on their phone and proceed to dial the
selected person (Campbell et al., 2010).
Physical Disability
Physical disability is based on two things: whether a person has one of a variety of long-
lasting conditions, or whether they have a condition that “limits one or more basic physical
activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying” (disabilitystatistics.org,
2012). Physical disabilities can be caused by a number of different things. Some of the more
serious physical disabilities, leading to partial or full paralysis, are primarily caused by stroke or
spinal cord injury (christopherreeve.org, 2012). Other cause include traumatic injury, locked-in
syndrome (where a person is alert but unable to speak or move due to voluntary muscle
paralysis; in some cases, patients are not even able to move their eyes (Wikipedia, 2012)),
multiple sclerosis (a disease involving damage to nerves in the brain and spine, leading to
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
6
numbness, fatigue, blurred vision, impaired speech, and/or loss of muscle coordination (Google
Dictionary, 2012)), and congenital (or at-birth) defects. There are about six million people with
paralysis, according to a study done by the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation
(christopherreeve.org, 2012).
The Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset can be a helpful tool to the physically disabled. It
provides an opportunity to interact with a device that they may be incapable of interacting with
physically. Various BCI devices and applications have already been developed for the physically
disabled. IpsiHand, for example, is a BCI aimed at helping stroke and traumatic brain injury
patients (Fok, 2011). Stroke and TBI can result in loss of function on one side of the body due to
damage in the opposing side of the brain; however, studies have shown that the ipsilateral (or
correstponding) hemisphere of the brain is also capable of controlling the body. IpsiHand takes
advantage of this and works as a “BCI hand orthosis” to restore movement to the patient (Fok,
2011). Another device is the brain-controlled wheelchair. There are a few different BCIs for
wheelchairs. One BCI allows the operator to move just by thinking of moving left/right/
forward/back. It is coupled with artificial intelligence that uses a mounted camera to guide the
wheelchair around obstacles in its path (Saenz, 2010). Another wheelchair is controlled by the
user focusing on a point on-screen. The wheelchair system is then able to determine an end-
point, and is able to move to this location while avoiding obstacles. This system requires the user
only focus when wanting to initiate movement, allowing them to relax while in transit (Kessel,
2009). Another application of a BCI for the disabled focuses on providing entertainment while
enhancing bodily functions through the use of biofeedback in games. Biofeedback monitors the
body’s automatic functions and uses the information gleaned from these functions in an effort to
provide some voluntary control over them. In games, biofeedback rewards the player for
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
7
executing some amount of control over the specified function (Ivancovici, Osorio and Rosario,
2011). This provides entertainment to the player, while training the user to control these
“involuntary” functions in the process. One final relevant application is brain-controlled music
interface. The interface allows patients to play music by translating brain impulses into musical
notes. The interface allows those with physical limitations to use music as therapy (Boyle 2011).
The biofeedback application brings up a key point when it comes to the physically
disabled. While it is important to improve quality of life, it is equally important that the
physically disabled have outlets for entertainment and emotional purposes as well. Humans are
not based solely upon what they need to do physically, such as opening doors, climbing stairs,
etc., but on the other factors as well. Humans need to interact, to play, to have a purpose in life.
This need is not limited to just the able-bodied, but encompasses the disabled as well. One of
these types of needs is art. “Art is an indigenous feature of every society – the activity of
painting is almost as ancient as man, and has symbolized oth [sic] personal and cultural aspects
of development (Dalley, 1984).” Art provides a variety of benefits for both the creator and the
viewer. As quoted by paralyzed graffiti artist Tempt One, “Art is the tool of empowerment and
social change” (eyewriter.org, n.d.). It can be used as a universal means of communication and a
way to present a message. It is a platform through which to express personal emotions, raising
consciousness and stimulating or calming the mind (Sidler, n.d.). Art can also be therapeutic; it
can be “relaxing, satisfying, frustrating” (Dalley, 1984).
The physically disabled, even the fully paralyzed, have come across the means to create
art. Many artists turn to painting. Using feet or mouths instead of hands, they are able to create
beautiful imagery. The focus will be on mouth artists, as these are the people that have the
potential to benefit the most from the Emotiv EPOC. Mouth artists create art by manipulating a
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
8
pen/pencil/paintbrush in their mouth. Often, the artist will have
a holder on the end of the tool to provide better control; some
have mobile easels as well, which results in less necessary head
movement from the artist (Chritchley, 1994). Paining is easier
for some than others. Artists with full neck movement can
obviously control the brush better than those with more limited
mobility. Some artists can only paint in short periods and are
unable to breathe freely while painting (Chritchley, 1994).
There are 107 mouth and foot artists in America registered
with the Association of Mouth and Foot Painting Artists of the
World, 65 of which are still alive, and 1127 mouth and foot artists registered in the world
(vdmfk.com, 2011).
There are a few physically disabled graphic artists as well. These graphic artists create
their art on a computer instead of with physical media such as paint. For those who still retain
head movement, graphic artists like Larime Taylor are able to use a tablet and pen the same way
that mouth artists paint (larimetaylor.com, 2012). However, with the technology available today,
graphic art is possible even for those with absolutely no range of motion at all. One interface
alternative to the mouse/pen and tablet is SmartNav. SmartNav uses a camera to track head
movement via a small dot that can be placed either directly on the head or on an accessory such
as glasses or a hat. The movement is converted into cursor movement on screen (Natural Point,
2011). Artist Sean Kelley comments on the use of SmartNav: “I have a bundle of Adobe CS3
graphic design programs to mess with…Technology is GREAT” (Kelley, 2011). Kelley also
Mouth Artist Steven Chambers (Battle, 2012)
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
9
mentions using a sip and puff tube to right- and left-click, as SmartNav only controls the cursor
(Kelley 2011).
Another alternative is the EyeWriter, designed by Graffiti Research Lab. EyeWriter is a
prime example of an input device for the fully paralyzed – cursor movement and clicking is
based entirely on eye movement. EyeWriter was a tool originally designed for Tempt One, a
graffiti artist suffering from a form of sclerosis
commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. The
degenerative disease has left him fully
paralyzed, able to move only his eye (Ebeling,
2011, video). EyeWriter works as a kind of
connect-the-dots. Clicking is handled by
holding a gaze at a specific point for four
seconds, which allows the user to both select
different tools and use them on a virtual canvas (Ebeling, 2011). Alternatively, the EyeWriter
can be used to select keys from a virtual keyboard and therefore be used as a means of
communication as well. This device was developed with cost in mind. As creator Mick Ebeling
describes at a TED talk, “You build this yourself, we publish the code for free, you download the
software for free, and now we’ve created a device that has absolutely no limitation. There’s no
insurance company that can say no, there’s no hospital that can say no, anybody that’s paralyzed
now has access to actually draw or communicate using only their eyes” (Ebeling, 2011 video).
Upon using EyeWriter for the first time, Tempt One said thus: “That was the first time I’ve
drawn anything for seven years. I feel like I had been held underwater and someone finally
reached down and pulled my head up so I could breathe” (Ebeling, 2011 video). The device
EyeWriter (Webley, 2010)
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
10
allowed Tempt to show his work in the Art of the Streets gallery at the Museum of
Contemporary Art in LA (Ebeling, 2011). He also mentions that he is “blessed to be able to
create and use [his] work to promote health reform, bring awareness about ALS and help others”
(eyewriter.org, n.d.).
So how can all of this information be applied to the Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset? The
headset is a possible viable alternative to the above-mentioned input devices. It certainly is an
alternative to those suffering from locked-in syndrome, unable even to move their head to use a
pen and tablet or the SmartNav. It may also be an alternative to the EyeWriter; Emotiv may
allow the user to create rounded lines instead of just straight connect-the-dots. The cursor
movement can be based on head movement, but can also be set to move via thought commands.
“Ideally, the user will eventually master the neuro-headset until using it becomes as natural as
typing on a keyboard or clicking a mouse” (Iancovici, Osoria and Rosario, 2011). The Emotiv
headset provides an opportunity, possibly a better opportunity than the alternatives, for the
physically disabled to find purpose, to act as an emotional outlet, to even provide a means of
income. One artist mentioned she was able to make “a regular salary, could set aside any reliance
on welfare” (Chrichtley, 1994). With these possibilities, it is necessary that these avenues are
explored for the physically disabled for full quality of life improvement, not just a focus on the
physical easements the device may provide.
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
11
Executive Summary
This study was conducted in order to determine whether or not the Emotiv EPOC
neuroheadset is a practical alternative input device for the severely paralyzed, specifically
examining the headset when used with Adobe Photoshop. The study replicated two different
situations: one where the user had mobility from the neck up, and the other where the user was
fully paralyzed and able only to move their eyes.
Students from all class levels were encouraged to participate in the study, provided they
had at least basic knowledge of Photoshop. A total of ten students participated; five males and
five females. The study was broken up into two sessions; once for a training period, and again
for user testing. During the training period, participants were asked to mentally move a cube on
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
12
screen up, down, left, and right. This training allowed the computer to ascribe the user’s thought
patterns with the associated commands. User testing encompassed three basic tasks in
Photoshop, using a mouse and then using the headset. All participants completed the tasks using
the mouse. Additionally, participants were split into two groups when working with the headset.
The same tasks were completed in both groups as with the mouse; however, this time
participants had to complete the tasks using either head and facial movement, or thought
commands and eye movement. Data collected for each task consisted of the time it took for the
participant to complete each task. Additionally, participants filled out a short questionnaire after
each task regarding their own views on ease of task completion. The questionnaire provided both
qualitative and subjective data about the usability of the mouse and the headset.
Results and major issues:
• All participants felt that they were either intermediate or expert Photoshop users
• All participants were able to complete tasks when presented with the mouse
• No participant was able to train all four commands up to 80% mastery
• Participants in the motion group were able to complete all tasks in time allotted
• Some participants had trouble with winking, as it would shift the headset and
sometimes move the mouse at an unwanted time; for others winking worked well
• No participant in the mental group was able to complete any of the tasks in the
time allotted
• When using headset with mind commands, users were unable to move in any
direction other than straight horizontal and vertical
• Users found all tasks very difficult when using brain commands
• Some people experienced pain and/or headaches after wearing the headset
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
13
• On average, discomfort lasted less than an hour after headset removal
• All students would use the headset if they were paralyzed, regardless of which
group they were in
Highlights of findings:
• Participants need more time to train mental commands
• It appears that users will not be able to draw curves or diagonals; however, more
training and a higher level of expertise may give the user this control
• Users should be able to modify which facial commands they can use for
clicking/dragging
• Work should be done on the headset to make it more comfortable for extended
wear
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
14
Methods
The study was conducted between April 23 and May 4, 2012 in the learning and emotions
lab (room 302A) at SUNY Oswego. It was administered by Julia Kester, and supervised by Dr.
Roger Taylor. A specification outline of the project may be viewed in Appendix A.
Participant # Age Gender Standing Photoshop Expertise
1 19 Female Freshman Intermediate 2 19 Female Freshman Intermediate 3 22 Male Senior Expert 4 21 Female Senior Expert 5 21 Female Senior Expert 6 20 Female Senior Intermediate 7 23 Male Graduate Student Expert 8 20 Male Senior Intermediate 9 25 Male Graduate Student Expert 10 24 Male Junior Intermediate
Software and Hardware
The goals of this project were implemented using Emotiv’s Software Development Kit,
the Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset, Processing, MindYourOSCs, GlovePIE, and user testing.
Images of the software may be viewed in Appendix A. The Emotiv SDK is made up of four
programs: the Emotiv Control Panel, EmoComposer, EmoKey, and TestBench. For this project,
only the Control Panel and EmoComposer were used. The Control Panel is the program that acts
as a translator between the headset and the computer. It is made up of four parts. The first part of
the program is the headset setup – used to show which sensors are connected, and how good of a
connection they are making. The second part of the Control Panel is the Expressiv Suite. The
Expressiv Suite shows an avatar that replicates the facial expressions of the headset wearer,
along with a moving graph depicting the level of detection for each expression. Users can modify
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
15
the sensitivity of each expression, as well as train each expression, in order to allow the program
to more accurately detect facial movement. The third part of the Control Panel is the Affectiv
Suite, which provides graphical output regarding the wearer’s subjective emotions. The final part
of the Control Panel is the Cognitiv Suite. The Cognitiv Suite is used to train thought commands,
the first step in allowing users to control aspects of the computer with their mind. In this Suite,
the wearer is presented with a cube that they try to control (move/rotate/disappear/etc).
Commands are trained multiple times, and if the thoughts commands are consistent enough, the
level of expertise for each command increases.
EmoComposer is an emulator, which allows the user to test different EmoStates
(commands recognized by the headset) without needing the headset itself. The user can set up
different testing environments within this program, and specify sensor connectivity, as well as
skill and signal level for each command. Additionally, the program can loop through and “send”
information from the headset over and over as if a real headset were being used, or the user may
choose to send one individual signal at a time.
The headset itself is made up of 16 felt sensors that rest on the wearer’s head, making
contact with the scalp through saline solution. The sensors pick up on the wearer’s brain waves,
while a built in gyroscope gathers data on head motion, and the information is transmitted
wirelessly to the computer via a Bluetooth USB drive.
While the Emotiv SDK provided some control over the computer with the headset
(mouse clicks and keyboard strokes) through the EmoKey program, it did not lend support for
mouse movement. Additionally, it was necessary that some commands act as a toggle (on/off
switch). Since this was integral to the project, other programs were required instead. Processing,
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
16
a java-based programming language/program, was used to handle the movement and thought
commands as well as all toggle situations of clicking, dragging, and releasing the mouse.
Processing required an additional program, MindYourOSCs, along with its associated library, in
order to communicate with the headset and understand the commands being sent to it. Processing
was unable to understand the gyroscope information though, so GlovePIE was utilized for this
aspect. GlovePIE is a program designed to help the computer communicate with a variety of
non-standard input devices, including the Wii remote and PlayStation Move. GlovePIE uses its
own basic scripting language, which is simpler and shorter than Processing; however, toggles
cannot be set up in GlovePIE, which is why both GlovePIE and Processing needed to be
employed instead of one dedicated program. With both of these applications running and
programmed accordingly, the headset wearer is able to move the mouse around on screen, click
(including typing via a virtual keyboard), and use any specified shortcut commands.
After setup in Processing and GlovePIE, the final part of the project consisted of training
and user testing. The training involved users working in the Control Panel with the Cognitiv
Suite, acquainting the participant with the way the headset worked and training four specified
commands (lift/drop/left/right) to be keyed to mouse movement. After training, participants
attempted to complete three tasks in Adobe Photoshop, first with the mouse for a control setting,
and second with the headset. The time results, as well as related questions from the tasks resulted
in the data needed for statistical purposes.
Measures
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
17
The participants were asked to complete three tasks, once using a mouse and keyboard,
and once using the Emotiv neuroheadset. Each task was measured by the time it took to complete
each task. The completion time was measured with a stopwatch, which was started once the task
was read to the participant. The time was stopped once the participant completed the task, or if
the allotted time of 15 minutes per task was met. When using the headset, use of the mouse and
keyboard was not permitted.
Testing Environment
All participants performed the tasks on the same computer. Adobe Photoshop version 5
was the program used. All participants completed tasks with the mouse. Participants were
randomly split into two groups, both using the same headset. Group one tried to control the
computer using thought commands and winks, while group two used head and facial movements
to try and control the computer. Each participant was provided with their own set of felt sensors
for hygienic purposes.
The researcher acted as both technician and orator. The job of the technician was to
ensure that all necessary programs were running and that a new Photoshop file was opened for
each participant. Additionally, once the participant arrived, the technician would fit the
participant with the headset and confirm that all sensors were connected properly. The technician
also kept track of task times. As orator, the researcher welcomed the participants, briefed them
on the experiment, and administered the tests and questionnaires.
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
18
Procedure
Participants were welcomed at the door, and were then briefed on the topic and basis of
the study. Participants were asked to read and sign an informed consent form (Appendix B,
Informed Consent Form), which further discussed the study and alerted the participant to any
possible dangers that participating could cause. The survey questionnaire was then given
(Appendix B, Questionnaire I); it consisted of demographic questions regarding age, gender,
education, computer use, and Adobe use. Next, the participant was brought to the computer and
fitted with the neuroheadset. It was explained to the participant that before the actual study could
commence, the computer needed a way to understand their thought patterns and translate these
thoughts into computer commands; for this, training was necessary. The training process was
explained to the participant, and the participant was given up to 15 minutes to work on training
each of the four provided commands. Upon completion, the participant was given a reminder that
their user testing session was the following week, and they were able to leave
For user testing, participants were again greeted and brought to the computer. Participants
were informed that they were first going try to complete tasks employing the mouse. The
experimenter explained each task, which were performed by the participant one at a time. At the
completion of each task, participants were asked to rate the task on difficulty (Appendix B,
Questionnaire II – A). Once all three tasks were completed, the participant was fitted with the
headset and provided with a list of commands (Appendix C) associating the headset with
respective mouse and keyboard commands. The participant was again given three tasks to
complete individually, and asked after each one to rate the task on difficulty (Appendix B,
Questionnaire II – B). Additionally, the participant was asked to suggest other headset
commands that they felt would work better than the ones provided.
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
19
After testing was complete, participants were asked general questions regarding overall
difficulty of tasks, discomfort (if any) from both headset and mouse, ranking of task difficulty,
and whether or not they would use the headset if they were one day paralyzed (Appendix B,
Questionnaire III – A and III – B). Finally, the participants were debriefed (Appendix B,
Debriefing Statement) and thanked for their participation in the study.
Tasks
Task 1: Create a new layer
• One of the most basic tasks; completed by clicking on the “New Layer” icon on
the bottom right, or through accessing the menu
Task 2: Draw a circle using the paintbrush tool
• Used to gauge motor control. While the circle shape tool allows the user to create
a round shape, the paintbrush will show ease/possibility of drawing curves using
the headset. Completed by clicking on the “Paintbrush” icon and then clicking
and dragging on the canvas.
Task 3: Write, “my name is (first and last name)”
• Requires many clicks – either via physical keyboard (when using mouse) or
virtual keyboard (when using headset). Used to show accuracy and difficulty.
Completed by clicking on the “Text” icon, clicking anywhere on the canvas, and
then sequentially pushing the keys on the virtual keyboard corresponding to the
given sentence.
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
20
Results
Overall, tasks completed using the mouse resulted in the fastest times (an average of 5.35
seconds/task), while tasks using the headset through motion and facial expressions came in
second (an average of 2 minutes and 16.77 seconds). Tasks using the headset with thought
control were not completed at all. Participants provided difficulty ratings for each task, on a scale
from 1 to 5, 1 being “Very Easy” 5 being “Very Difficult”. Results for difficulty rating were
similar to task completion time; the mouse was rated easiest at an average rating of 1.13. Next
was the motion commands with an average rating of 2.67. The thought control received an
average difficulty rating of 5.
Mouse
Task 1 (Mouse): Create a new layer Average time (s) Minimum time
(s) Maximum time
(s) Average
Difficulty Rating # of times not
completed 2.02 1.3 2.8 1 0
When asked to create a new layer using the mouse, it took users an average of 2.02 seconds, with
a range from 1.3 seconds to 2.8 seconds. This task is performed frequently in Photoshop, and
requires only one click. Participants felt that this task was very easy to complete.
Task 2 (Mouse): Draw a circle using the paintbrush tool Average time (s) Minimum time
(s) Maximum time
(s) Average
Difficulty Rating # of times not
completed 4.84 2.1 9 1.2 0
It took users an average of 4.84 seconds to draw a circle with the paintbrush tool when using the
mouse. Times ranged from a low of 2.1 seconds to a high of 9 seconds. Participants rated this
task slightly more difficult than the last, at an average of 1.2
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
21
Task 3 (Mouse): Write “my name is (first and last name)” Average time (s) Minimum time
(s) Maximum time
(s) Average
Difficulty Rating # of times not
completed 9.2 4.5 12.6 1.2 0
This task took the most amount of time for participants to complete. The range of time on this
task was also higher than the other tasks (from 4.5 seconds to 12.6 seconds) – likely due to
variance in each participant’s typing speed. Like task two, participants gave this task a rating of
1.2.
Headset (movement)
Task 1 (Headset, movement): Create a new layer Average time (s) Minimum time
(s) Maximum time
(s) Average
Difficulty Rating # of times not
completed 32.66 4.5 59.3 1.8 0
When attempting to create a new layer using the headset via motion, the average time it took
each participant to complete the task was 32.66 seconds. Speeds ranged from a minimum of 4.5
seconds to a maximum of 59.3 seconds. Participants ranked the difficulty of this task at 1.8,
slightly less difficult than “Easy”.
Task 2 (Headset, movement): Draw a circle using the paintbrush tool Average time (s) Minimum time
(s) Maximum time
(s) Average
Difficulty Rating # of times not
completed 33.34 23.1 36.2 3.2 0
The average time it took participants to complete task three using the headset via motion was
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
22
33.34 seconds. Times were a range of 13.1 seconds, from 23.1 seconds up to 36.2 seconds. On
average, participants felt that the task was slightly higher that “Neither easy nor difficult”, at 3.2.
Task 3 (Headset, movement): Write “my name is (first and last name)” Average time (s) Minimum time
(s) Maximum time
(s) Average
Difficulty Rating # of times not
completed 344.32 124.7 891.8 3 0
Task three took the longest to complete, with an average of 5 minutes and 44.32 seconds and a
range of 12 minutes and 47.1 seconds; however, participants rated the difficulty of this task
slightly lower than the last, at 3.
Headset (thought commands)
Task 1 (Headset, thought commands): Create a new layer Average time (s) Minimum time
(s) Maximum time
(s) Average
Difficulty Rating # of times not
completed - - - 5 5
Task 2 (Headset, thought commands): Draw a circle using the paintbrush tool Average time (s) Minimum time
(s) Maximum time
(s) Average
Difficulty Rating # of times not
completed - - - 5 5
Task 3 (Headset, thought commands): Write “my name is (first and last name)” Average time (s) Minimum time
(s) Maximum time
(s) Average
Difficulty Rating # of times not
completed - - - 5 5
No participants from the group using thought commands were able to complete any of the tasks
presented to them. All participants ranked each task at the highest level of difficulty, resulting in
an average difficulty of 5 (or “Very Difficult”) for each task.
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
23
The following box plots provide a visual comparison of the completion time for each
task.
Task 1 Completion Time
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Mouse Motion Thought
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
24
Task 2 Completion Time
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Mouse Motion Thought
Task 3 Completion Time
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Mouse Motion Thought
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
25
Difficulty Comparison
The following table displays information regarding the overall difficulty of each input
device as perceived by participants, as well as the standard deviation associated with each. The
chart corresponds closely with the averages of the three task average ratings in each group – a
difference of .13 with the mouse and headset using motion. There was no difference between the
overall perceived average using the thought commands versus the average of the difficulty rating
for each task’s mean.
Mean Standard Deviation
Overall mouse difficulty
1 0
Overall headset motion difficulty
2.8 .837
Overall headset thought difficulty
5 0
Statistical Analysis
A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether the input method
(mouse vs. motion vs. thoughts) influenced the time it took to complete the tasks. Results of the
analysis indicate that the null hypothesis should be rejected, and that input method has a
significant effect on task completion time (F (2, 17) = 8611.913, p < .05 for the first task, F (2,
17) = 66728.423, p < .05 for the third task, and F (2, 17) = 52.3378, p < .05 for the third task). A
Tukey HSD test was performed to determine which groups differed significantly from one
another. Results indicated that significant differences in time occurred between all groups:
Mouse (M = 2.02, SD = .459), Motion (M = 32.66, SD = 27.011), Thoughts (M = 900, SD = 0)
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
26
for task one; Mouse (M = 4.84, SD = 2.062), Motion (M = 33.34, SD = 9.176), Thoughts (M =
900, SD = 0) for task two; and Mouse (M = 9.2, SD = 2.706), Motion (M = 344.32, SD =
328.025), Thoughts (M = 900, SD = 0) for the third task. Full statistical results may be viewed in
Appendix D.
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
27
Participant Feedback
Along with the quantitative data gathered from the surveys, users also provided
qualitative feedback on the input devices that they used. This feedback included users’ thoughts
and feelings about input device comfort, ease of use, and task difficulty. Overall, users expressed
greater ease and comfort with the mouse.
Mouse feedback:
When asked to comment on how easy the tasks were to complete, comments included:
• “Since I have used Photoshop many times in the past, this was easy for me to do.”
• “I am very familiar with Photoshop”
This feedback shows that the tasks were easy to complete because the users were familiar with
Photoshop. The mouse is also a familiar tool to these users, as it is one of the standard input
devices for a computer.
All participants agreed that the first task (Create a new layer) was the easiest. The general
feedback for this task was that it required only a single click.
Participants varied on their answers for which task was the most difficult. Answers were
either the second task (Draw a circle using the paintbrush tool) or the third task (Type “My name
is (first name, last name)”). Many participants provided further explanations as to why the
specific task was most difficult:
Task 2:
• “I am not good at drawing a circle with the paintbrush tool”
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
28
• “I draw with a tablet now, so drawing with a mouse is a little harder now”
• “I’m not good at drawing circles”
Task 3:
• “Just the needed time to type”
• “Probably just because it was the most complex. I had to think about spelling”
For participants that chose the second task as the most difficult, their reasoning was that drawing
a circle freehand could be a challenge, especially with a mouse as opposed to a more natural
drawing tool such as a pen and tablet. Others felt task three was the most difficult, because it was
the most complex of the tasks and took more time to complete.
Neuroheadset Feedback - Motion
Participants provided a deal more feedback for the Emotiv headset. Most of it pertained
to the physical and mental pairings of the headset to the computer. Problems that participants
voiced about the motion experience overall included:
• “I learned that if I winked while clenching my jaw it was a lot easier to click on the new layer button”
• “Registration of jaw clenches is touchy”
• “Winking to click on things threw me off because when I wink my head moves”
• “I need a better click event”
• “I am a bad winker I think, so maybe blink once, or twice to start/stop?”
• “Click-and-drag has issues”
While those in the thought group stated:
• “I breathed in deeply and the pointer went up”
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
29
• “I believe more time to practice with the headset would help. Maybe suggestions for thoughts to control movement during practice would help too”
• “Had harder time moving up and down than in training”
• “Could not get cursor to move. When it did move, it was rarely in the direction I was thinking. For example, thought to move cursor up, and the cursor moved left”
• “Couldn’t go left or right”
• “I could not move the cursor in any direction significantly”
Participants also provided suggestions for device improvement, which included:
• “Winking both eyes for only one command, not splitting it into two”
• “Customize what physical cue is for what function”
• “I think training is more important, because I was thinking all the same things [as in training], it just wouldn’t move all the time”
Overall, participants desired different headset-to-computer pairings in the motion group, while
participants from the thought group wanted more training time and had difficulty in commanding
the cursor to move in the desired direction. Participants felt that the Emotiv headset was an
interesting way to interact with a computer, though rather difficult, with a high learning curve
and in need of improvements.
Participants in the motion group generally felt that the first task was the easiest, although
one person felt that the last task was easiest because they were able to type quickly due to
enlarged buttons on the virtual keyboard. Comments on why the first task was so easy included:
• “Task 1 was simple because it only involved moving your head and clicking on an object once”
• “It’s very easy to point and click with this system”
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
30
Participants primarily chose the third task as the most difficult to complete with the
headset, explaining that the multiple clicks and head movements necessary significantly
increased the task’s challenge. There were also comments made about the second task, in which
drawing with the headset could be difficult as well. Participants in the thought group generally
agreed with the participants in the motion group as to which tasks were easiest and most
difficult, though as they could not complete even a portion of any of the tasks, in actuality they
were really making a prediction as to which task they would find to be easy or difficult.
When asked how to the headset felt at the end of wearing it, participants voiced a variety
of answers:
• “After the training I got a minor headache compared to feeling fine after the tasks”
• “It takes some time to get used to it but it’s not overwhelming”
• “After the first day using the cube it was more that my head was tired more than uncomfortable”
• “The headset was still comfortable after wearing”
• “Gives a slight headache”
• “My head is itchy and hurts after wearing it only 45 minutes”
• “Time plays a large factor here. It short bursts, the headset doesn’t hurt but prolonged usage is a bit uncomfortable”
• “Barely noticeable after time unless I thought about it”
• “After about 30 minutes it became very uncomfortable around the temple”
There appears to be no consistency in the discomfort experienced by the wearer. Additionally,
when asked how long pain lasted after wearing the headset, the average answer was less than an
hour, though many participants said that the headset did not hurt at all.
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
31
The last question that was asked of the participants was whether or not they would use
the device if they became severely paralyzed. While all participants in both groups said they
would, many answers were met with conditions:
• “If it was improved and proven to work I would definitely try it”
• “With more practice”
• “If I were able to spend more time and find a way to make it work for me, definitely”
• “But I feel that the training would be very long and irritating”
• “I am not sure to what quality the imagery would be though”
• “I would consider something like this, it was simple to navigate and use”
General thoughts seem to conclude that more practice and more training would result in the
Emotiv headset’s use.
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
32
Recommendations
Participants showed no apparent problems when attempting to complete tasks using the
mouse/keyboard. There were difficulties, however, in both groups using the headset.
Issue: Mapping mouse clicks to winks
Some participants displayed difficulty trying to click when using the headset via
movement. Winking would cause the headset to move (due to skin movement associated with the
wink), and by extension the gyroscope. Since the gyroscope effected mouse movement, the
mouse would move before the wink was completed, and the participant would click in a different
location than intended. This caused the extreme range in times for Task 1 – because the “New
Layer” button was so small – and Task 3 – because there were many more buttons that needed to
be clicked as compared to the other two tasks. The second task was not as problematic, because
only one button needed to be selected, and it was larger than the “New Layer” button. There
were some participants that displayed no difficulty at all when winking – hence the 4.5-second
time for task one, much lower than the average time for the task.
Recommendation
Offer alternative mappings for the mouse clicks. This would allow users to choose
something that would suit them better. Options include smiling, smirking, laughing.
Issue: Raising eyebrows triggers repeated command
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
33
In the motion group, participants were supposed to be able to start running a virtual
keyboard by raising their eyebrows. During pilot testing, this mapping worked as expected.
However, during actual testing, while raising eyebrows would still bring up the keyboard, the
command kept getting sent repeatedly to the computer. This in turn prevented the user from
being able to complete the task further.
Recommendation
Mapping the headset to the keyboard was turned off for user testing. The programming in
Processing should probably be examined thoroughly; though there were no apparent errors and
the code looked correct, there is likely something that was overlooked that is causing the issue.
Issue: cursor tracking
When trying to move the cursor around on screen, participants would often have to turn
or rotate their head further than was comfortable to look at the computer screen. The information
being communicated between the gyroscope and the cursor position appears to require
recalibration. For example, a user might tilt their head up to move the cursor up, but their head is
already tilted to begin with so the extra tilt now makes it difficult to see the computer. To fix
this, the user would have to move the cursor in the opposite direction until it meets the edge of
the screen, and continue to move their head past this point. A better way to explain the problem
may be to compare it with a mouse. If the tracking on the mouse is lower, the user might move
the mouse forward until they run out of area on the desk to keep going, but the cursor on the
screen still has not yet reached the point that the user desires. The fix for the headset is
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
34
equivalent to the mouse user needing to lift the mouse and reposition it to continue moving the
cursor.
Recommendation
Attempt to implement an algorithm to allow for better tracking.
Issue: Thought commands
Using the thought commands to move the mouse cursor proved to be a major challenge
for all participants in the group. Participants would try to move in one direction, and the cursor
would often move in another or not at all. Additionally, when the cursor did move, it was in a
strict vertical or horizontal direction. Users were not able to move the cursor at an angle or in a
curve – the basis behind the project.
Recommendation
Give users more time to train. Participants were unable to train any command up to at
least 80% mastery except for the first (lift). With more time, expertise should increase, and the
participant should be able to better control where the cursor moves. Higher expertise will
hopefully also result in the ability to draw diagonals and curves.
Issue: MindYourOSCs crashing
The MindYourOSCs program that communicated between the Emotiv Control Panel and
Processing crashed sometimes when in the middle of user testing. It was often not apparent when
this happened, as no error message showed up above the rest of the windows – the message
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
35
would be at whatever window level the actual program rested; in this case, it was always running
behind Photoshop or one of the other necessary programs. Users would need to restart the task
once this was discovered.
Recommendation
Notify developer of the issue. Developer should fix bugs associated with the
program crashing. Additionally, the error message should appear on top of all other windows so
that the user is aware the program has crashed.
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
36
Conclusion
Overall, the Emotiv headset shows potential as an alternative input device for the
paralyzed. Despite the results of the one-way ANOVA, which shows a significant amount of
variance between the three input groups (mouse, motion, and thought), using the device with
motion alone is certainly feasible. The user testing proves this, as each participant in the motion
group was able to complete each task – nearly all in a respectable amount of time. For anyone
paralyzed entirely though, results are not promising for using the headset with thoughts. None of
the participants in the thought group were able to complete any of the tasks. However,
modifications to both the headset and the research project may yield more encouraging results.
If future work were to be done regarding this topic, changes would need to be made to the
methods in which the research is done. The original intent was to determine whether the Emotiv
EPOC neuroheadset is a better alternative input device for the severely paralyzed than the
EyeWriter or SmartNav inputs. However, the other input devices were not available for this
particular study. In the future, it would be important to have participants in groups with these
other devices as well as the two groups testing the headset. This would allow a way to directly
compare all of the groups instead of predicting an outcome without evidence. These additional
groups would also eliminate the need for testing with the mouse and keyboard. Additionally, for
more accurate results and greater statistical power, it is highly important that more than five
participants are in each group. The group using thought commands with the headset should be
given more time for training, as fifteen minutes per command allows very little mastery. The
group using motion commands with the headset would not need to train at all (originally,
participants were going to be split into headset groups based on mental command expertise, in
order to try and evenly distribute expertise level across the groups; however, participant expertise
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
37
levels were all approximately the same). It may be necessary to determine whether or not
training is needed for the other devices as well, and allot time for such as necessary. One final
improvement would be to present each participant with the same exact sentence to type.
Requiring that participants type their name results in time inconsistencies; one user may have a
very short name, while another a very long one. Requiring the same sentence would eliminate a
possible confounding variable.
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
38
Bibliography
(2012). In Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from
http://www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.ddJFKRNoFiG/b.4048063/k.C5D5/Christopher_R
eeve_Spinal_Cord_Injury_and_Paralysis_Foundation.htm
(2012). In Disability Statistics. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from
http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/index.cfm
About SmartNav. (n.d.). In SmartNav. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from
http://www.naturalpoint.com/smartnav/products/about.html
Adelsen, M. (2011). Emotiv Experimenter: An experimentation and mind-reading application for
the Emotiv EPOC (Master's thesis). 15 April
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. (2010, August 27). In PubMed Health. Retrieved February 11,
2012, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001708/
Artists worldwide. (2011). In VDMFK. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from
http://www.vdmfk.com/index.php?id=440&L=0&MP=3-893
Battle, B. (2012, February 2). Incredible paintings are work of mouth art. In The Sun. Retrieved
February 11, 2012, from http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4103893/Mouth-
artist-Steve-Chambers-50-paints-with-the-brush-between-his-lips.html
Boyle, R. (2011, March 22). Mind-controlled musical instrument helps paralysis patients
rehabilitate. In PopSci.com. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
39
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-03/medicine-mind-using-eeg-patients-
can-play-music-merely-thinking
Campbell, A., Choudhury, T., Hu, S., Lu, H., Mukerjee, M., Rabbi, M., & Raizada, R. (2010).
NeuroPhone: Brain-mobile phone interface using a wireless EEG headset (Master's
thesis). 30 August
Chritchley, E. (1994, August). The motivation and shared experience of mouth and foot painting
artists. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 87, 457-460.
Dalley, T. (1984). Art as therapy: An introduction to the use of art as a therapeutic technique.
New York City, NY: Tavistock Publications.
Ebeling, M. (2011, April). Mick Ebeling: The invention that unlocked a locked-in artist. In TED.
Retrieved February 11, 2012, from
http://www.ted.com/talks/mick_ebeling_the_invention_that_unlocked_a_locked_in_artist
.html
Emotiv software development kit: User manual for release 1.0.0.5. (2011).
EPOC neuroheadset. (2012). In Emotiv.com. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from
http://emotiv.com/store/hardware/epoc-bci/epoc-neuroheadset/
Fok, S. (2011, April 27). IpsiHand: Direct recouping if intention and movement. In RESNA.
Retrieved February 11, 2012, from http://aac-rerc.psu.edu/wordpressmu/RESNA-
SDC/2011/04/27/ipsihand-direct-recoupling-of-intention-and-movement-washington-
university-in-st-louis/
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
40
Iancovici, T., Osorio, S., & Rosario, B. (2011). Biofeedback in virtual reality applications and
gaming.
Kelleys, S. (2011). About Me. In SeanKelleys.com. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from
http://seankelleys.com/about-me/
Kessel, A. (2009, May 26). Advancements in brain control: Wheelchairs that move by thought.
In Singularity Hub. Retrieved March 6, 2012, from
http://singularityhub.com/2009/05/26/advancements-in-brain-control-wheelchairs-that-
move-by-thought/
Locked-in syndrome. (2010, June 6). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome#cite_note-bauer1979varieties-0
Lusebrink, V. (2004). Art therapy and the brain: An attempt to understand the underlying
processes of art expression in therapy. Journal of the Art Therapy Association, 21(3),
125-135.
Multiple sclerosis. (2012). In Google Dictionary. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=sea&ie=UTF-
8&ion=1#hl=en&site=webhp&q=multiple+sclerosis&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=VO9
oT_uGC-T30gHW47mACQ&ved=0CDsQkQ4&fp=1&ix=sea&ion=1&biw=1593&
Nosowitz, D. (2011, February 18). Video: German autonomous car project demonstrates driving
with brainwaves. In PopSci.com. Retrieved February 8, 2012, from
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2011-02/video-mind-controlled-car-obeys-your-
unspoken-commands
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
41
Popova, M. (2010, June 4). EyeWriter: Eyetracking device empowers paralyzed graffiti artist. In
Big Think. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from http://bigthink.com/ideas/20374
Saenz, A. (2010, September 14). Great video of wheelchair controlled by human thought with AI
guidance. In Singularity Hub. Retrieved February 14, 2012, from
http://singularityhub.com/2010/09/14/great-video-of-wheelchair-controlled-by-human-
thought-with-ai-guidance/
Schwartz, A., Cui, X., Weber, D., & Moran, D. (2006, October 5). Neuron, 52, 205-220.
Sidler, R. Art therapy for patients with paraplegia. Paraplegie, 104.
Stopczynski, A., Larsen, J., Stahlhut, C., Petersen, M., & Hansen, L. (2011). A smartphone
interface for a wireless EEG headset with real-time 3D reconstruction.
Taylor, L. (n.d.). Art. In Larime Taylor. Retrieved February 11, 2012, from
http://larimetaylor.com/?page_id=7
Webley, K. (2010, November 11). The 50 best inventions of 2010. In Time Specials. Retrieved
February 11, 2012, from
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2029497_2030618_202982
2,00.html
Wright, F. (2010). EmoChat (Master's thesis).
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
42
Appendix A – Outline and Software
Specifications Outline
• Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset • Emotiv Research Edition SDK
o Control Panel Headset setup/connectivity Training of thought commands
o EmoComposer Simulate headset and actions for easier testing
• Processing o Define computer commands for headset
Lift/drop/left/right = up/down/left/right Clicking/dragging = winks/jaw clenches
o Use for toggling mouse clicks/drags • MindYourOSCs
o Communicate between Processing and headset • GlovePIE software
o Interpret gyroscopic information from headset and translate to mouse movements • Adobe Photoshop
o Testing environment • Minimum of 10 users who are familiar with Adobe Photoshop
o Training Four commands: Lift/Drop/Left/Right Maximum of 15 minutes per command for training
o Tasks Three basic tasks in Photoshop - first with mouse, second with headset
• Half will attempt to perform headset tasks through facial movements, the other half through mental commands; randomly selected
Timed • Maximum of 15 minutes per task
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
48
Appendix B – Instruments
Informed Consent Form
Informed Consent
This study involves research and is being conducted by Julia Kester, MA in Human Computer Interaction, under the supervision of Dr. Roger Taylor. The nature of this research involves the use of the Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset as an input device. The purpose is to determine if the headset is a practical alternative input device for the physically disabled, specifically focusing on the creation of art. The research should take no more than two one-hour durations per subject. The Human Subjects Committee has approved the study.
For the first part of the study, you will be asked to fill out a survey on demographics before beginning the task. The survey will include questions regarding age, gender, and technological experience. You will then be brought to a designated laptop and equipped with the Emotiv headset. You will then attempt to train your brain to four specified commands. You will continue to train your brain until each command reaches a level of no less than 80% learned, or as long as you are willing to continue, whichever comes first, for a period of no more 15 minutes/command. At the end of the training, the headset will be removed, and the sensors will be placed in a plastic bag with you participant number to be used in the next part of the study.
For the second part of the study, you will again be brought to the designated computer to perform three tasks in Adobe Photoshop using the mouse and keyboard. After completing the tasks, you will be fitted with the Emotiv headset. This time, you will be asked to complete the tasks using only the Emotiv headset. In both cases, you will be timed for statistical purposes, but are encouraged to go at your own pace. At the completion of each task, you will be asked questions regarding task difficulty. At the end of all tasks, you will be given a post-experiment survey inquiring about overall difficulty, any discomfort, and whether or not you would use the device if you were hypothetically fully paralyzed.
After a time, you may experience physical discomfort on your head where the sensors rest. Additionally, you may feel mental fatigue from the thought commands necessary to use the Emotiv headset. You are asked to inform the researcher if anything more than minor discomfort or fatigue occurs. Additionally, you may withdraw from the study at any point in time for any reason.
Your identity will be kept entirely anonymous. Anything referring to you will be done through a participant number (e.g. assigned ID).
Benefits of this research include providing an alternative input device for the physically disabled, which in turn provides a creative outlet and potentially a way to earn a living as a
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
49
graphic artist or similar. Benefits to the participant include getting to use an innovative and interesting piece of technology that most people will not have access to.
You are welcome to ask questions about the research even after the session is over. You may contact the researcher, Julia Kester, at [email protected] or by calling 585-478-8710.
I have read the above statement about the purpose and nature of this study, and I freely consent to participate.
Participant’s Signature Date Experimenter’s Signature Date
Print Participant’s Name Date Print Experimenter’s Name Date
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
50
Questionnaire I
Questionnaire I Participant #_________
Please complete questions to the best of your ability Date________________
1. What is your age? (Circle one)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25+
2. What is your gender? (Circle one)
Male Female
3. What is your class standing? (Circle one)
A. Freshman
B. Sophomore
C. Junior
D. Senior
E. Graduate student
F. Other
4. What is the highest level of education you have obtained? (Circle one)
A. Some high school or less
B. High school diploma
C. Some college (less than 2 years)
D. Two-year college degree (AA)
E. Four-year college degree (BA or BS)
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
51
F. MA/PhD, MD, MBA, Law degree
5. Are computers and/or graphic design significant focuses in your major? (Circle one)
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not sure.
6. For how long have you used computers?(Circle one)
A. More than 10 years
B. Between 5 and 10 years
C. Between 0 and 5 years
7. In terms of computers, what is your level of technological expertise?
A. Beginner
B. Intermediate
C. Expert
D. Not sure
8. What is your computer preference? (Circle one)
A. Desktop
B. Laptop
C. Other
D. No preference
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
52
9. How often do you use computers in a day (in hours)? (Circle one)
A. Greater than 10 hours
B. Between 5 and 10 hours
C. Between 0 and 5 hours
D. Never
10. What is your experience level with the entire Adobe Creative Suite?
A. Beginner
B. Intermediate
C. Expert
D. Not Sure
11. What is your experience level with Adobe Photoshop?
A. Beginner
B. Intermediate
C. Expert
D. Not Sure
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
53
Questionnaire II - A
Questionnaire II - A Participant #______
Please complete questions to your best ability. Date____________
The following questions will be asked at the end of each task that uses the mouse.
Task I
1. How easy or difficult was it to complete the task? (Circle one)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Easy Easy Neither Easy Nor Difficult
Difficult Very Difficult
Task II
1. How easy or difficult was it to complete the task? (Circle one)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Easy Easy Neither Easy Nor Difficult
Difficult Very Difficult
Task III
1. How easy or difficult was it to complete the task? (Circle one)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Easy Easy Neither Easy Nor Difficult
Difficult Very Difficult
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
54
Questionnaire II - B
Questionnaire II - B Participant #______
Please complete questions to your best ability. Date____________
The following questions will be asked at the end of each task that uses the Emotiv headset.
Task I
1. How easy or difficult was it to complete the task? (Circle one)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Easy Easy Neither Easy Nor Difficult
Difficult Very Difficult
2. Do you have any suggestions about how the task could be completed with the Emotiv EPOC in a more intuitive manner? (Write in)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Task II
1. How easy or difficult was it to complete the task? (Circle one)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Easy Easy Neither Easy
Nor Difficult
Difficult Very Difficult
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
55
2. Do you have any suggestions about how the task could be completed with the Emotiv EPOC in a more intuitive manner? (Write in)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Task III
1. How easy or difficult was it to complete the task? (Circle one)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Easy Easy Neither Easy
Nor Difficult
Difficult Very Difficult
2. Do you have any suggestions about how the task could be completed with the Emotiv EPOC in a more intuitive manner? (Write in)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
56
Questionnaire III - A
Questionnaire III - A Participant #_______
Please complete questions to your best ability. Date______________
The following questions regard the tasks you attempted to complete while using mouse.
1. How easy or difficult was it to complete the requested tasks? (Circle one)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Easy Easy Neither Easy Nor Difficult
Difficult Very Difficult
Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Which task did you find most difficult? (Circle one)
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Which task did you find easiest? (Circle one)
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
57
Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. How did the mouse feel to you at the end of wearing it? (Circle One)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Comfortable
Comfortable Neither Comfortable
Nor Uncomfortable
Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
58
Questionnaire III - B
Questionnaire III - B Participant #_______
Please complete questions to your best ability. Date______________
The following questions regard the tasks you attempted to complete while using the Emotiv headset.
1. How easy or difficult was it to complete the requested tasks? (Circle one)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Easy Easy Neither Easy Nor Difficult
Difficult Very Difficult
Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Which task did you find most difficult? (Circle one)
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Which task did you find easiest? (Circle one)
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
59
Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. How did the headset feel to you at the end of wearing it? (Circle One)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Comfortable
Comfortable Neither Comfortable
Nor Uncomfortable
Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable
Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. If you were to one day become paralyzed from the neck down would you be interested in using this device to create graphic imagery? (Circle One)
Yes No
Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
60
Debriefing Statement
DEBRIEFING STATEMENT
This research was conducted in order to evaluate the practicality of the Emotiv EPOC headset as an alternative computer input device for the severely physically handicapped.
In this study, you were monitored when completing your assigned tasks and were asked to answer questions from a questionnaire about your experience. All participants were given these tasks. In addition, all participants were asked the same questions and stated their own opinions to each. I expect that some participants will have trouble completing some of the tasks due to being introduced to a new input system, but that the tasks accomplishable.
If you would like to receive a report of the data when it is completed, or you would like to receive a summary of the findings, please contact Julia Kester at [email protected]. If you have concerns about your rights as a participant in this experiment, please contact the faculty supervisor, Dr. Roger Taylor at (315) 312-4150 or Dr. Barry Friedman, the chair of Human Subject Committee at (315)-312-6381. If you have experienced any undue stress or have negative reactions regarding your experience as a participant and wish further assistance, please seek the help of the personnel at the Student Counseling Center at the following contact information: Student Counseling Center 113 Mary Walker Health Center, Oswego, New York 13126, Phone: (315) 312-4416, Hours: 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
Thank you for your participation.
Running head: EMOTIV AS AN ALTERNATIVE INPUT DEVICE FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
61
Appendix C – List of Commands
Headset (Movement) Headset (Thoughts)
Move cursor: Rotate head up/down/left/right respectively
Left click: Left wink
Right click: Right wink
Open virtual keyboard: Raise eyebrows
Move cursor: Think lift/drop/left/right respectively
Left click: Left wink
Toggle mouse dragging: Right wink