DOI: 10.26188/25734054.v1
title: Dataset of Semi-Autonomous Continuous Robotic Arm Control Using an Augmented Reality Brain-Computer Interface

description: <b>A detailed description of the study is available </b><b>here</b><b>. Please cite the following article when using this data.</b>K. Kokorin, S. R. Zehra, J. Mu, P. Yoo, D. B. Grayden and S. E. John, "Semi-Autonomous Continuous Robotic Arm Control Using an Augmented Reality Brain-Computer Interface," in <i>IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering</i>, vol. 32, pp. 4098-4108, 2024.OverviewThe experiment involved 18 healthy participants using an augmented reality (AR) brain-computer interface (BCI) to continuously control a robotic arm. The system placed five flashing stimuli in a cross pattern around the robot end-effector and decoded which stimulus the participant was attending to based on steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEPs). Attending to any of the outer four stimuli caused the robot to move in that direction, while the middle stimulus corresponded to forward. The session was made up of one observation block followed by four reaching blocks, with a 1-3 min rest period in between. This study was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 20853).Observation TaskParticipants completed 25 trials where they observed the arm move in each of the five direction, while attending to the corresponding stimulus. Each trial comprised a 2-3 s prompt, a 3.6 s go period and a 2 s rest period.Reaching TaskParticipants completed four blocks of 12 reaching trials in an ABBA structure, using direct (DC) or shared control (SC). Participants completed an additional training block of four practice trials when using a control mode for the first time. Objects were arranged in a random configuration for each participant in four out of nine positions. In each trial, a different object was designated as the goal which the participant had to touch with the end-effector. Colliding with the workspace or exceeding its limits, touching the wrong block, or exceeding 38.5 s led to a failed trial. The end-effector starting position was randomised for each participant.Brain-Computer InterfaceThe stimuli were displayed at 60 Hz using a HoloLens 2 (Microsoft Inc., USA) at frequencies of 7, 8, 9, 11 and 13 Hz. The frequency layout was randomised for each participant. Electroencephalography (EEG) data was recorded using g.USBamp amplifier and 16 active wet g.Scarabeo electrodes (g.tec medical engineering GmbH, Austria). Every 0.2 s, the system decoded which stimulus the participant was attending to based on the last 1 s of data, filtered between 1-40 Hz, using canonical correlation analysis.Control ModesThe participants used the system to control an anthropometric robotic arm (Reachy, Pollen Robotics, France). The direction corresponding to the decoded stimulus was converted to a velocity vector used to control robot translation in direct control trials. In shared control trials, this vector was linearly combined with an assistance signal to the object that the system predicted the user wanted to reach. The ratio of user vs. autonomous control was based on how far the end-effector was from the predicted object (the robot confidence).Data<b>Participants.csv</b> contains the ID, age, sex, how many hours of previous BCI experience they have, their level of fatigue and which control mode they completed first for all 18 participants.<b>Trial_details.csv</b> contains the details of trials that were incorrectly labelled in the .xdf files or had to be repeated due to equipment issues. Trials are described by the participant ID, trial number, object number and trial result recorded in the .xdf file and which of this information needs to be updated.<b>P#_S#_R#.xd</b><b>f</b> contain the recording for each session labelled by the participant ID, session number and run number. Each participant completed one session with the recording split across 2-4 runs/files. Each run is made up of Data and Events.Data: EEG data recorded at 256 Hz for 16 channels corresponding to (in order) O1, Oz, O2, PO7, PO3, POz, PO4, PO8, Pz, CPz, C1, Cz, C2, FC1, FCz, FC2. Only the first nine channels were used for online decoding.Events:'start session': start of a run.'start run: mode' start a DC, SC or observation block.'P# freqs: f1, f2, f3, f4, f5': participant ID and frequencies corresponding to up, down, left, right and forward.'init:goal', 'go:goal', 'rest:goal': start of a trial segment and the associated goal (object# in reaching trials and direction in observation trials).'success:goal' or 'fail:goal': trial result.'X:x, y, z pred:d pred_obj:obj# conf:c alpha:a u_robot:ux, uy, uz u_cmb: ux, uy,uz': system output made up of end-effector coordinates, decoded direction, predicted object, robot confidence, assistance ratio, robot assistance vector and combined control vector.<b>processed.csv</b> contains the extracted events for each time step across all sessions. The events are organised in rows with the following columns:p_id: participant.block_i: block index.block: block type (observation, DC or SC reaching).trial: trial index.ts: time step (in samples).goal: trial goal (direction or object index).reached: reached object index.success: trial success or failure in reaching trials and correct time step prediction in observation trials..x,y,z: end-effector coordinates (m).pred: decoded direction.pred_obj: SC object prediction.conf: SC prediction confidence (based on distance to predicted object).alpha: proportion of autonomous assistance.u_robot_x, y, z: assistance vector.u_cmb_x, y, z: combined user and assistance vector that controls the robot.dL: distance travelled since last time step (mm).SoftwareSoftware for running the experiment and processing the runs is available here.ContactIf you have any questions, please contact Kirill at kkokorin@student.unimelb.edu.au.