|
Submitted by
Assigned_Reviewer_3
Q1: Comments to author(s).
First provide a summary of the paper, and then address the following
criteria: Quality, clarity, originality and significance. (For detailed
reviewing guidelines, see
http://nips.cc/PaperInformation/ReviewerInstructions)
Recently, there have been great interests to the
co-adaptive Brain Computer Interface (BCI) to efficiently decode movement
intentions. In this respect, this paper introduces a new framework that
finds optimal parameters in encoder and decoder using a linear quadratic
Gaussian system. The simulation results showed the parameter convergence
in terms of a decoding error.
To optimize both the encoder and the
decoder in BCI, the authors suggested the LQG-based multi-agent control
method. However, this reviewer believes that it lacks the description of
the characteristics of LQG problem and why this framework is proper to
solve problems in real BCI condition.
The acquisition or
composition of the simulated data was not clearly described, which makes
it hard to understand the proposed method. Furthermore, please discuss how
the proposed optimization rules can be successfully adapted to noisy and
intrinsically non-stationary brain signals as a further research.
The authors claimed that the proposed method is better than
standard co-adaptive approaches. Regarding the point, this reviewer
believes that it would be beneficiary to provide additional information on
the results such as trade-off comparison, etc. Q2: Please
summarize your review in 1-2 sentences
This paper introduces a new framework that takes into
account the changes made in the other side, in this paper, they call each
side as an agent and formulates the co-adaption model using a linear
quadratic Gaussian system. Despite a simulation-based description, the
proposed system is well described and thus has a great potential for real
applications. Submitted by
Assigned_Reviewer_4
Q1: Comments to author(s).
First provide a summary of the paper, and then address the following
criteria: Quality, clarity, originality and significance. (For detailed
reviewing guidelines, see
http://nips.cc/PaperInformation/ReviewerInstructions)
In brain-computer interface (BCI), co-adaptation is an
important issue, because not only the decoders, but also the brain
activities can also adapt through feedback. To investigate this problem,
the paper introduced a split linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) system. Based
on the theoretical framework used in the multi-agent control theory, the
authors proposed interleaved algorithm combining linear-quadratic
estimation (LQE) for decoder updates and linear-quadratic regulator (LQR)
for encoder updates with recursive least squares (RLS) to estimate the
system parameters of the other agents (Procedure 1). They modified further
the co-adaptive decoder by incorporating r-step ahead estimators of the
encoder parameters (Procedure 2). For proof of concepts, a numerical
experiment with both procedures was conducted and the results looks
promising.
Quality: Although I did not check all the
equations, the paper is technically sound except for the second line of
Equation (13). It should be a scaler, but the matrix multiplications do
not become scalars, probably. The authors employed a simple LQG system to
investigate the co-adaptation problem. The simulation results nicely
demonstrated that the procedures work as intended in a rather ideal
situation. However, it is not clear from the manuscript how useful their
algorithms are in actual BCI applications.
Clarity: The paper
is well organized and clear enough.
Originality: I was not
aware of a theoretical framework for investigating co-adaptation problem
in BCI community (I have not read important references). The authors have
in mind 3D tracking applications of BCI with invasive devices, where the
LQG system is more appropriate. As future extensions, incorporating some
nonlinearity is necessary to deal with other type of BCI applications.
Significance: Although there is no validation of the proposed
procedures with practical BCI applications, I think this work could
inspire many BCI researchers who are looking for efficient feedback
schemes to enhance BCI performances and to increase the number of BCI
users.
Based on the above criteria, I would think that this
paper is a fair contribution marginally above the threshold. One reason is
that such a theoretical framework could inspire other researchers in the
field.
Q2: Please summarize your review in 1-2
sentences
Although this paper does not contain any real examples
to show its practical importance and the LQG system may be too simple to
deal with many other BCI applications, I think it is still nice for BCI
community and relevant research areas that this work will be presented at
NIPS. However, the manuscript is not so strong because of no practical
validation. Thus, I would say that it is marginally above the
threshold. Submitted by
Assigned_Reviewer_6
Q1: Comments to author(s).
First provide a summary of the paper, and then address the following
criteria: Quality, clarity, originality and significance. (For detailed
reviewing guidelines, see
http://nips.cc/PaperInformation/ReviewerInstructions)
The authors attempted to develop a general theoretical
framework for designing the co-adaptation between the encoder model and
decoder algorithm in a brain-computer interface (BCI). Because the nervous
system change its encoding properties in presence of sensory feedback, it
has long been hypothesized that introducing co-adaptation between encoder
and decoder will improve the performance of BCI. Perhaps the biggest
objection to this hypothesis is that the co-adaptation may result in crazy
oscillation in the parameters of the encoder model and the decoder, and
lead to unstable BCI performance.
Through computer simulations
with idealized parameters, the authors showed that the parameters of the
encoder model converge to a stablized level, and co-adaptation led to
lower estimation errors. Overall, this is an interesting theoretical
exploration for the BCI community.
However, the authors made a lot
of assumptions that may or may not be consistent with experimental
knowledge. For example, the choices for the signal noise covariance Rc,
the cost values, and the forgetting factor lambda were all explained
vaguely, it's not clear whether they reflect biological reality. Also the
comparison with other co-adaptation methods is lacking.
Overall,
the technical quality is sufficient. The presentation is clear. Although
there are certain drawbacks, it still represents an very informative
exploration which will serve as a baseline to help inspire more novel
ideas, and the results are sufficiently significant for publication in
NIPS. Q2: Please summarize your review in 1-2
sentences
It would be great if the authors can address the
concerns raised above. As is, the merits of this paper still warrant its
publishing in NIPS.
Q1:Author
rebuttal: Please respond to any concerns raised in the reviews. There are
no constraints on how you want to argue your case, except for the fact
that your text should be limited to a maximum of 6000 characters. Note
however that reviewers and area chairs are very busy and may not read long
vague rebuttals. It is in your own interest to be concise and to the
point.
We appreciate all of the reviewers' comments. We
address the points of all of the reviewers together.
In
contemporary BCI applications, Kalman Filter (KF) based methods are widely
used, relying on the same modeling assumptions used in this paper. These
models were demonstrated to be adequate approximations, and can be
expected to be equally applicable in our context. Some works use
alternative methods, however their modeling choices are still under
evaluation (e.g. which nonlinearities to use). It is natural then to
introduce our framework in the LQG setting, validated by the ubiquity of
KF-based methods in application, and extend to nonlinear settings in
future work.
Previous works in co-adaptation characterize changes
in performance when a user learns how to control a BCI in the presence of
an adaptive decoder. In previous work, little emphasis has been placed on
modeling how the full system, including the user, changes. We believe that
introducing our modeling scheme in which both user and decoder adaptation
are modeled is one of our contributions, and it isn't clear how one should
compare its performance to that of existing approaches.
Our
parameter selection was inspired by a biologically realistic parameter
regime, as outlined in the end of section 3, although it wasn't fit to
values from a specific experiment. Based on reviewer feedback, we intend
to supplement the paper with details of the parameters used in our
simulations, as well as publicly share our code. Our simulations were
fairly robust, and the specific choices of parameters are incidental to
the paper's contribution.
We appreciate the reviewers' recognition
that our work may serve to motivate targeted experiments. While the focus
in this paper is on simulations, we believe our approach to be of interest
to the BCI experimental community, and hope that experiments will inspire
further theoretical insights which we can build on. Our motivation in
sharing our work at this stage is to provide novel theoretical tools to
the community, while also driving the advancement of theoretical
approaches. In future efforts, we will seek to extend the theoretical
tools and begin applying them to experiments.
Again, thank you for
your feedback.
Equation correction: Equation (13) should be
written with the vector (G\hat(x)_{t-1} - x_t) instead of the terms [-x_t
G\hat(x)_{t-1}].
| |