Assessing the Effect of the Refresh Rate of a Device on Various Motion Stimulation Frequencies Based on Steady-State Motion Visual Evoked Potentials

Overview

Journal Front Neurosci

Date 2022 Jan 24

PMID 35069096

Authors

Chengcheng Han

Guanghua Xu

Xiaowei Zheng

Peiyuan Tian

Kai Zhang

Wenqiang Yan

Yaguang Jia

Xiaobi Chen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The refresh rate is one of the important parameters of visual presentation devices, and assessing the effect of the refresh rate of a device on motion perception has always been an important direction in the field of visual research. This study examined the effect of the refresh rate of a device on the motion perception response at different stimulation frequencies and provided an objective visual electrophysiological assessment method for the correct selection of display parameters in a visual perception experiment. In this study, a flicker-free steady-state motion visual stimulation with continuous scanning frequency and different forms (sinusoidal or triangular) was presented on a low-latency LCD monitor at different refresh rates. Seventeen participants were asked to observe the visual stimulation without head movement or eye movement, and the effect of the refresh rate was assessed by analyzing the changes in the intensity of their visual evoked potentials. The results demonstrated that an increased refresh rate significantly improved the intensity of motion visual evoked potentials at stimulation frequency ranges of 7-28 Hz, and there was a significant interaction between the refresh rate and motion frequency. Furthermore, the increased refresh rate also had the potential to enhance the ability to perceive similar motion. Therefore, we recommended using a refresh rate of at least 120 Hz in motion visual perception experiments to ensure a better stimulation effect. If the motion frequency or velocity is high, a refresh rate of≥240 Hz is also recommended.

Citing Articles

A subjective and objective fusion visual fatigue assessment system for different hardware and software parameters in SSVEP-based BCI applications.

Tian P, Xu G, Han C, Du C, Li H, Chen R Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):27872.

PMID: 39537730 PMC: 11560949. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-79401-3.

Visual Quality, Motility Behavior, and Retinal Changes Associated with Reading Tasks Performed on Electronic Devices.

Orduna-Hospital E, Munarriz-Escribano M, Sanchez-Cano A Life (Basel). 2023; 13(8).

PMID: 37629634 PMC: 10455831. DOI: 10.3390/life13081777.

Questionnaires based on natural language processing elicit immersive ruminative thinking in ruminators: Evidence from behavioral responses and EEG data.

Li Y, Li C, Zhang T, Wu L, Lin X, Li Y Front Neurosci. 2023; 17:1118650.

PMID: 36950128 PMC: 10025410. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1118650.

References

Nagel S, Dreher W, Rosenstiel W, Spuler M . The effect of monitor raster latency on VEPs, ERPs and Brain-Computer Interface performance. J Neurosci Methods. 2017; 295:45-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.11.018. View

Bognar A, Csibri P, Andras C, Sary G . LCD Monitors as an Alternative for Precision Demanding Visual Psychophysical Experiments. Perception. 2016; 45(9):1070-83. DOI: 10.1177/0301006616651954. View

Born R, Bradley D . Structure and function of visual area MT. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2005; 28:157-89. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.26.041002.131052. View

Heinrich S, Bach M . Adaptation characteristics of steady-state motion visual evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003; 114(7):1359-66. DOI: 10.1016/s1388-2457(03)00088-9. View

Cao T, Wan F, Man Wong C, da Cruz J, Hu Y . Objective evaluation of fatigue by EEG spectral analysis in steady-state visual evoked potential-based brain-computer interfaces. Biomed Eng Online. 2014; 13(1):28. PMC: 3995691. DOI: 10.1186/1475-925X-13-28. View

Wolpaw J, Birbaumer N, McFarland D, Pfurtscheller G, Vaughan T . Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin Neurophysiol. 2002; 113(6):767-91. DOI: 10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00057-3. View

Teng F, Chen Y, Choong A, Gustafson S, Reichley C, Lawhead P . Square or sine: finding a waveform with high success rate of eliciting SSVEP. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2011; 2011:364385. PMC: 3173954. DOI: 10.1155/2011/364385. View

Kihara K, Kawahara J, Takeda Y . Usability of liquid crystal displays for research in the temporal characteristics of perception and attention. Behav Res Methods. 2010; 42(4):1105-13. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.4.1105. View

Overbeek B, Eilander H, Lavrijsen J, Koopmans R . Are visual functions diagnostic signs of the minimally conscious state? an integrative review. J Neurol. 2018; 265(9):1957-1975. PMC: 6132665. DOI: 10.1007/s00415-018-8788-9. View

10.

Bashashati A, Fatourechi M, Ward R, Birch G . A survey of signal processing algorithms in brain-computer interfaces based on electrical brain signals. J Neural Eng. 2007; 4(2):R32-57. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/4/2/R03. View

11.

Middendorf M, McMillan G, Calhoun G, Jones K . Brain-computer interfaces based on the steady-state visual-evoked response. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 2000; 8(2):211-4. DOI: 10.1109/86.847819. View

12.

Zheng X, Xu G, Wang Y, Han C, Du C, Yan W . Objective and quantitative assessment of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity based on steady-state motion visual evoked potentials using concentric-ring paradigm. Doc Ophthalmol. 2019; 139(2):123-136. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-019-09702-w. View

13.

Nicolas-Alonso L, Gomez-Gil J . Brain computer interfaces, a review. Sensors (Basel). 2012; 12(2):1211-79. PMC: 3304110. DOI: 10.3390/s120201211. View

14.

Mulholland P, Zlatkova M, Redmond T, Garway-Heath D, Anderson R . Effect of varying CRT refresh rate on the measurement of temporal summation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2015; 35(5):582-90. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12227. View

15.

Bin G, Gao X, Yan Z, Hong B, Gao S . An online multi-channel SSVEP-based brain-computer interface using a canonical correlation analysis method. J Neural Eng. 2009; 6(4):046002. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/6/4/046002. View

16.

Borghuis B, Tadin D, Lankheet M, Lappin J, van de Grind W . Temporal Limits of Visual Motion Processing: Psychophysics and Neurophysiology. Vision (Basel). 2019; 3(1). PMC: 6802765. DOI: 10.3390/vision3010005. View

17.

Norcia A, Appelbaum L, Ales J, Cottereau B, Rossion B . The steady-state visual evoked potential in vision research: A review. J Vis. 2015; 15(6):4. PMC: 4581566. DOI: 10.1167/15.6.4. View

18.

Labecki M, Kus R, Brzozowska A, Stacewicz T, Bhattacharya B, Suffczynski P . Nonlinear Origin of SSVEP Spectra-A Combined Experimental and Modeling Study. Front Comput Neurosci. 2017; 10:129. PMC: 5187367. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2016.00129. View

19.

Zheng X, Xu G, Wu Y, Wang Y, Du C, Wu Y . Comparison of the performance of six stimulus paradigms in visual acuity assessment based on steady-state visual evoked potentials. Doc Ophthalmol. 2020; 141(3):237-251. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-020-09768-x. View

20.

Han C, Xu G, Xie J, Chen C, Zhang S . Highly Interactive Brain-Computer Interface Based on Flicker-Free Steady-State Motion Visual Evoked Potential. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1):5835. PMC: 5895715. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-24008-8. View