@article {3386, title = {A practical, intuitive brain-computer interface for communicating {\textquoteright}yes{\textquoteright} or {\textquoteright}no{\textquoteright} by listening.}, journal = {J Neural Eng}, volume = {11}, year = {2014}, month = {06/2014}, pages = {035003}, abstract = {OBJECTIVE: Previous work has shown that it is possible to build an EEG-based binary brain-computer interface system (BCI) driven purely by shifts of attention to auditory stimuli. However, previous studies used abrupt, abstract stimuli that are often perceived as harsh and unpleasant, and whose lack of inherent meaning may make the interface unintuitive and difficult for beginners. We aimed to establish whether we could transition to a system based on more natural, intuitive stimuli (spoken words {\textquoteright}yes{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteright}no{\textquoteright}) without loss of performance, and whether the system could be used by people in the locked-in state. APPROACH: We performed a counterbalanced, interleaved within-subject comparison between an auditory streaming BCI that used beep stimuli, and one that used word stimuli. Fourteen healthy volunteers performed two sessions each, on separate days. We also collected preliminary data from two subjects with advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), who used the word-based system to answer a set of simple yes-no questions. MAIN RESULTS: The N1, N2 and P3 event-related potentials elicited by words varied more between subjects than those elicited by beeps. However, the difference between responses to attended and unattended stimuli was more consistent with words than beeps. Healthy subjects{\textquoteright} performance with word stimuli (mean 77\% {\textpm} 3.3 s.e.) was slightly but not significantly better than their performance with beep stimuli (mean 73\% {\textpm} 2.8 s.e.). The two subjects with ALS used the word-based BCI to answer questions with a level of accuracy similar to that of the healthy subjects. SIGNIFICANCE: Since performance using word stimuli was at least as good as performance using beeps, we recommend that auditory streaming BCI systems be built with word stimuli to make the system more pleasant and intuitive. Our preliminary data show that word-based streaming BCI is a promising tool for communication by people who are locked in.}, keywords = {Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Auditory Perception, brain-computer interfaces, Communication Aids for Disabled, Electroencephalography, Equipment Design, Equipment Failure Analysis, Female, Humans, Male, Man-Machine Systems, Middle Aged, Quadriplegia, Treatment Outcome, User-Computer Interface}, issn = {1741-2552}, doi = {10.1088/1741-2560/11/3/035003}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24838278}, author = {Jeremy Jeremy Hill and Ricci, Erin and Haider, Sameah and McCane, Lynn M and Susan M Heckman and Jonathan Wolpaw and Theresa M Vaughan} } @article {2172, title = {The BCI competition III: Validating alternative approaches to actual BCI problems.}, journal = {IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng}, volume = {14}, year = {2006}, month = {06/2006}, pages = {153-9}, abstract = {

A\ brain-computer interface\ (BCI) is a system that allows its users to control external devices with\ brainactivity. Although the proof-of-concept was given decades ago, the reliable translation of user intent into device control commands is still a major challenge. Success requires the effective interaction of two adaptive controllers: the user{\textquoteright}s\ brain, which produces\ brain\ activity that encodes intent, and the BCI system, which translates that activity into device control commands. In order to facilitate this interaction, many laboratories are exploring a variety of signal analysis techniques to improve the adaptation of the BCI system to the user. In the literature, many machine learning and pattern classification algorithms have been reported to give impressive results when applied to BCI data in offline analyses. However, it is more difficult to evaluate their relative value for actual\ online\ use. BCI data competitions have been organized to provide objective formal evaluations of alternative methods. Prompted by the great interest in the first two BCI Competitions, we organized the third BCI Competition to address several of the most difficult and important analysis problems in BCI research. The paper describes the data sets that were provided to the competitors and gives an overview of the results.

}, keywords = {Algorithms, Brain, Communication Aids for Disabled, Databases, Factual, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Neuromuscular Diseases, Software Validation, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, User-Computer Interface}, issn = {1534-4320}, doi = {10.1109/TNSRE.2006.875642}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16792282}, author = {Benjamin Blankertz and M{\"u}ller, Klaus-Robert and Krusienski, Dean J and Gerwin Schalk and Jonathan Wolpaw and Schl{\"o}gl, Alois and Pfurtscheller, Gert and Mill{\'a}n, Jos{\'e} del R and Schr{\"o}der, Michael and Niels Birbaumer} } @article {2166, title = {BCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system.}, journal = {IEEE Trans Biomed Eng}, volume = {51}, year = {2004}, month = {06/2004}, pages = {1034-43}, abstract = {Many laboratories have begun to develop brain-computer interface (BCI) systems that provide communication and control capabilities to people with severe motor disabilities. Further progress and realization of practical applications depends on systematic evaluations and comparisons of different brain signals, recording methods, processing algorithms, output formats, and operating protocols. However, the typical BCI system is designed specifically for one particular BCI method and is, therefore, not suited to the systematic studies that are essential for continued progress. In response to this problem, we have developed a documented general-purpose BCI research and development platform called BCI2000. BCI2000 can incorporate alone or in combination any brain signals, signal processing methods, output devices, and operating protocols. This report is intended to describe to investigators, biomedical engineers, and computer scientists the concepts that the BC12000 system is based upon and gives examples of successful BCI implementations using this system. To date, we have used BCI2000 to create BCI systems for a variety of brain signals, processing methods, and applications. The data show that these systems function well in online operation and that BCI2000 satisfies the stringent real-time requirements of BCI systems. By substantially reducing labor and cost, BCI2000 facilitates the implementation of different BCI systems and other psychophysiological experiments. It is available with full documentation and free of charge for research or educational purposes and is currently being used in a variety of studies by many research groups.}, keywords = {Algorithms, Brain, Cognition, Communication Aids for Disabled, Computer Peripherals, Electroencephalography, Equipment Design, Equipment Failure Analysis, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Systems Integration, User-Computer Interface}, issn = {0018-9294}, doi = {10.1109/TBME.2004.827072}, author = {Gerwin Schalk and Dennis J. McFarland and Hinterberger, T. and Niels Birbaumer and Jonathan Wolpaw} } @article {2168, title = {A brain-computer interface using electrocorticographic signals in humans.}, journal = {J Neural Eng}, volume = {1}, year = {2004}, month = {06/2004}, pages = {63-71}, abstract = {

Brain-computer interfaces\ (BCIs) enable users to control devices with electroencephalographic (EEG) activity from the scalp or with single-neuron activity from within the\ brain. Both methods have disadvantages: EEG has limited resolution and requires extensive training, while single-neuron recording entails significant clinical risks and has limited stability. We demonstrate here for the first time that electrocorticographic (ECoG) activity recorded from the surface of the\ brain\ can enable users to control a one-dimensional\ computer\ cursor rapidly and accurately. We first identified ECoG signals that were associated with different types of motor and speech imagery. Over brief training periods of 3-24 min, four patients then used these signals to master closed-loop control and to achieve success rates of 74-100\% in a one-dimensional binary task. In additional open-loop experiments, we found that ECoG signals at frequencies up to 180 Hz encoded substantial information about the direction of two-dimensional joystick movements. Our results suggest that an ECoG-based BCI could provide for people with severe motor disabilities a non-muscular communication and control option that is more powerful than EEG-based BCIs and is potentially more stable and less traumatic than BCIs that use electrodes penetrating the\ brain.

}, keywords = {Adult, Brain, Communication Aids for Disabled, Computer Peripherals, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Electrodes, Implanted, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Movement Disorders, User-Computer Interface}, issn = {1741-2560}, doi = {10.1088/1741-2560/1/2/001}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15876624}, author = {Leuthardt, E C and Gerwin Schalk and Jonathan Wolpaw and Ojemann, J G and Moran, D} } @article {2268, title = {Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control.}, journal = {Clin Neurophysiol}, volume = {113}, year = {2002}, month = {06/2002}, pages = {767-91}, abstract = {

For many years people have speculated that electroencephalographic activity or other electrophysiological measures of brain function might provide a new non-muscular channel for sending messages and commands to the external world - a brain-computer interface (BCI). Over the past 15 years, productive BCI research programs have arisen. Encouraged by new understanding of brain function, by the advent of powerful low-cost computer equipment, and by growing recognition of the needs and potentials of people with disabilities, these programs concentrate on developing new augmentative communication and\ controltechnology for those with severe neuromuscular disorders, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, brainstem stroke, and spinal cord injury. The immediate goal is to provide these users, who may be completely paralyzed, or {\textquoteright}locked in{\textquoteright}, with basic communication capabilities so that they can express their wishes to caregivers or even operate word processing programs or neuroprostheses. Present-day BCIs determine the intent of the user from a variety of different electrophysiological signals. These signals include slow cortical potentials, P300 potentials, and mu or beta rhythms recorded from the scalp, and cortical neuronal activity recorded by implanted electrodes. They are translated in real-time into commands that operate a computer display or other device. Successful operation requires that the user encode commands in these signals and that the BCI derive the commands from the signals. Thus, the user and the BCI system need to adapt to each other both initially and continually so as to ensure stable performance. Current BCIs have maximum information transfer rates up to 10-25bits/min. This limited capacity can be valuable for people whose severe disabilities prevent them from using conventional augmentative communication methods. At the same time, many possible applications of BCI technology, such as neuroprosthesis\ control, may require higher information transfer rates. Future progress will depend on: recognition that BCI research and development is an interdisciplinary problem, involving neurobiology, psychology, engineering, mathematics, and computer science; identification of those signals, whether evoked potentials, spontaneous rhythms, or neuronal firing rates, that users are best able to\ control\ independent of activity in conventional motor output pathways; development of training methods for helping users to gain and maintain that\ control; delineation of the best algorithms for translating these signals into device commands; attention to the identification and elimination of artifacts such as electromyographic and electro-oculographic activity; adoption of precise and objective procedures for evaluating BCI performance; recognition of the need for long-term as well as short-term assessment of BCI performance; identification of appropriate BCI applications and appropriate matching of applications and users; and attention to factors that affect user acceptance of augmentative technology, including ease of use, cosmesis, and provision of those communication and\ control\ capacities that are most important to the user. Development of BCI technology will also benefit from greater emphasis on peer-reviewed research publications and avoidance of the hyperbolic and often misleading media attention that tends to generate unrealistic expectations in the public and skepticism in other researchers. With adequate recognition and effective engagement of all these issues, BCI systems could eventually provide an important new communication and\ control\ option for those with motor disabilities and might also give those without disabilities a supplementary\ control\ channel or a\ control\ channel useful in special circumstances.

}, keywords = {Brain Diseases, Communication Aids for Disabled, Computer Systems, Electroencephalography, Humans, User-Computer Interface}, issn = {1388-2457}, doi = {10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00057-3}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12048038}, author = {Jonathan Wolpaw and Niels Birbaumer and Dennis J. McFarland and Pfurtscheller, Gert and Theresa M Vaughan} } @article {2163, title = {Brain-computer interface technology: a review of the first international meeting.}, journal = {IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng}, volume = {8}, year = {2000}, month = {06/2000}, pages = {164-73}, abstract = {

Over the past decade, many laboratories have begun to explore brain-computer interface (BCI) technology as a radically new communication option for those with neuromuscular impairments that prevent them from using conventional augmentative communication methods. BCI{\textquoteright}s provide these users with communication channels that do not depend on peripheral nerves and muscles. This article summarizes the first international meeting devoted to BCI research and development. Current BCI{\textquoteright}s use electroencephalographic (EEG) activity recorded at the scalp or single-unit activity recorded from within cortex to control cursor movement, select letters or icons, or operate a neuroprosthesis. The central element in each BCI is a translation algorithm that converts electrophysiological input from the user into output that controls external devices. BCI operation depends on effective interaction between two adaptive controllers, the user who encodes his or her commands in the electrophysiological input provided to the BCI, and the BCI which recognizes the commands contained in the input and expresses them in device control. Current BCI{\textquoteright}s have maximum information transfer rates of 5-25 b/min. Achievement of greater speed and accuracy depends on improvements in signal processing, translation algorithms, and user training. These improvements depend on increased interdisciplinary cooperation between neuroscientists, engineers, computer programmers, psychologists, and rehabilitation specialists, and on adoption and widespread application of objective methods for evaluating alternative methods. The practical use of BCI technology depends on the development of appropriate applications, identification of appropriate user groups, and careful attention to the needs and desires of individual users. BCI research and development will also benefit from greater emphasis on peer-reviewed publications, and from adoption of standard venues for presentations and discussion.

}, keywords = {Algorithms, Cerebral Cortex, Communication Aids for Disabled, Disabled Persons, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Neuromuscular Diseases, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, User-Computer Interface}, issn = {1063-6528}, doi = {10.1109/TRE.2000.847807}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10896178}, author = {Jonathan Wolpaw and Niels Birbaumer and Heetderks, W J and Dennis J. McFarland and Peckham, P H and Gerwin Schalk and Emanuel Donchin and Quatrano, L A and Robinson, C J and Theresa M Vaughan} }