01769nas a2200373   4500008004100000245003800041210003700079260001200116300000900128490000600137520083700143653000800980653002900988653001601017100001801033700001601051700001501067700002101082700002101103700002101124700001201145700001501157700001601172700002001188700001301208700002101221700001501242700001901257700001601276700001601292700001501308700002401323856004801347       2012                        eng d00aReview of the BCI Competition IV.0 aReview of the BCI Competition IV  c07/2012  a1-310 v63 aThe BCI competition IV stands in the tradition of prior BCI competitions that aim to provide high quality neuroscientific data for open access to the scientific community. As experienced already in prior competitions not only scientists from the narrow field of BCI compete, but scholars with a broad variety of backgrounds and nationalities. They include high specialists as well as students. The goals of all BCI competitions have always been to challenge with respect to novel paradigms and complex data. We report on the following challenges: (1) asynchronous data, (2) synthetic, (3) multi-class continuous data, (4) session-to-session transfer, (5) directionally modulated MEG, (6) finger movements recorded by ECoG. As after past competitions, our hope is that winning entries may enhance the analysis methods of future BCIs.10aBCI10abrain-computer interface10acompetition1 aTangermann, M1 aMuller, K R1 aAertsen, A1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aBraun, Christoph1 aBrunner, Clemens1 aLeeb, R1 aMehring, C1 aMiller, K J1 aMueller-Putz, G1 aNolte, G1 aPfurtscheller, G1 aPreissl, H1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aSchlögl, A1 aVidaurre, C1 aWaldert, S1 aBlankertz, Benjamin  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2281165704388nas a2200385   4500008004100000022001400041245009500055210006900150260001200219300001100231490000800242520325500250653001003505653003403515653002103549653001003570653003603580653002403616653002703640653002103667653001103688653000903699653004103708653002803749100002603777700002503803700001403828700001903842700001403861700001503875700002503890700002103915700001803936856004803954       2011                        eng d  a1872-895200aTransition from the locked in to the completely locked-in state: a physiological analysis.0 aTransition from the locked in to the completely lockedin state a  c06/2011  a925-330 v1223 a<h4 style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 17px;">OBJECTIVE:&nbsp;</h4>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">To clarify the physiological and behavioral boundaries between locked-in (LIS) and the completely locked-in state (CLIS) (no voluntary eye movements, no communication possible) through electrophysiological data and to secure&nbsp;<span class="highlight">brain-computer-interface</span>&nbsp;(<span class="highlight">BCI</span>) communication.</p>
<h4 style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 17px;">METHODS:&nbsp;</h4>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Electromyography from facial muscles, external anal sphincter (EAS), electrooculography and electrocorticographic data during different psychophysiological tests were acquired to define electrophysiological differences in an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patient with an intracranially implanted grid of 112 electrodes for nine months while the patient passed from the LIS to the CLIS.</p>
<h4 style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 17px;">RESULTS:&nbsp;</h4>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">At the very end of the LIS there was no facial muscle activity, nor external anal sphincter but eye control. Eye movements were slow and lasted for short periods only. During CLIS event related&nbsp;<span class="highlight">brain</span>potentials (ERP) to passive limb movements and auditory stimuli were recorded, vibrotactile stimulation of different body parts resulted in no ERP response.</p>
<h4 style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 17px;">CONCLUSIONS:&nbsp;</h4>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">The results presented contradict the commonly accepted assumption that the EAS is the last remaining muscle under voluntary control and demonstrate complete loss of eye movements in CLIS. The eye muscle was shown to be the last muscle group under voluntary control. The findings suggest ALS as a multisystem disorder, even affecting afferent sensory pathways.</p>
<h4 style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; line-height: 17px;">SIGNIFICANCE:&nbsp;</h4>
<p style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Auditory and proprioceptive&nbsp;<span class="highlight">brain-computer-interface</span>&nbsp;(<span class="highlight">BCI</span>) systems are the only remaining communication channels in CLIS.</p>10aAdult10aAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis10aArea Under Curve10aBrain10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aDisease Progression10aElectroencephalography10aElectromyography10aHumans10aMale10aSignal Processing, Computer-Assisted10aUser-Computer Interface1 aMurguialday, Ramos, A1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aBensch, M1 aMartens, S M M1 aHalder, S1 aNijboer, F1 aSchoelkopf, Bernhard1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aGharabaghi, A  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2088829202112nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245004800055210004100103260001200144300001200156490000800168520133600176653002201512653002901534653000801563653002001571653001501591653002401606100001901630700001901649700001601668700002301684700002601707700002101733700002001754856004801774       2008                        eng d  a0165-027000aAn auditory brain-computer interface (BCI).0 aauditory braincomputer interface BCI  c01/2008  a43–500 v1673 aBrain-computer interfaces (BCIs) translate brain activity into signals controlling external devices. BCIs based on visual stimuli can maintain communication in severely paralyzed patients, but only if intact vision is available. Debilitating neurological disorders however, may lead to loss of intact vision. The current study explores the feasibility of an auditory BCI. Sixteen healthy volunteers participated in three training sessions consisting of 30 2-3 min runs in which they learned to increase or decrease the amplitude of sensorimotor rhythms (SMR) of the EEG. Half of the participants were presented with visual and half with auditory feedback. Mood and motivation were assessed prior to each session. Although BCI performance in the visual feedback group was superior to the auditory feedback group there was no difference in performance at the end of the third session. Participants in the auditory feedback group learned slower, but four out of eight reached an accuracy of over 70% correct in the last session comparable to the visual feedback group. Decreasing performance of some participants in the visual feedback group is related to mood and motivation. We conclude that with sufficient training time an auditory BCI may be as efficient as a visual BCI. Mood and motivation play a role in learning to use a BCI.10aauditory feedback10abrain-computer interface10aEEG10alocked-in state10amotivation10asensorimotor rhythm1 aNijboer, Femke1 aFurdea, Adrian1 aGunst, Ingo1 aMellinger, Jürgen1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aKübler, Andrea  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1739979702392nas a2200361   4500008004100000022001400041245008900055210006900144260001200213300001600225490000800241520135100249653003401600653002901634653002501663653002901688653000901717653001901726100001601745700002001761700001701781700001901798700001301817700001901830700001401849700001501863700002301878700002401901700002101925700002101946700001501967856004801982       2008                        eng d  a1388-245700aA P300-based brain-computer interface for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.0 aP300based braincomputer interface for people with amyotrophic la  c08/2008  a1909–19160 v1193 aOBJECTIVE:
The current study evaluates the efficacy of a P300-based brain-computer interface (BCI) communication device for individuals with advanced ALS.
METHODS:
Participants attended to one cell of a N x N matrix while the N rows and N columns flashed randomly. Each cell of the matrix contained one character. Every flash of an attended character served as a rare event in an oddball sequence and elicited a P300 response. Classification coefficients derived using a stepwise linear discriminant function were applied to the data after each set of flashes. The character receiving the highest discriminant score was presented as feedback.
RESULTS:
In Phase I, six participants used a 6 x 6 matrix on 12 separate days with a mean rate of 1.2 selections/min and mean online and offline accuracies of 62% and 82%, respectively. In Phase II, four participants used either a 6 x 6 or a 7 x 7 matrix to produce novel and spontaneous statements with a mean online rate of 2.1 selections/min and online accuracy of 79%. The amplitude and latency of the P300 remained stable over 40 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS:
Participants could communicate with the P300-based BCI and performance was stable over many months.
SIGNIFICANCE:
BCIs could provide an alternative communication and control technology in the daily lives of people severely disabled by ALS.10aAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis10abrain-computer interface10aelectroencephalogram10aevent-related potentials10aP30010aRehabilitation1 aNijboer, F.1 aSellers, E., W.1 aMellinger, J1 aJordan, M., A.1 aMatuz, T1 aFurdea, Adrian1 aHalder, S1 aMochty, U.1 aKrusienski, D., J.1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aKübler, A  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1857198403153nas a2200481   4500008004100000022001400041245008200055210006900137260001200206300001000218490000700228520180600235653001002041653002802051653002002079653003602099653002402135653002702159653002402186653001102210653001102221653001602232653000902248653001602257653001902273653001702292653004102309653001302350653002502363653001702388653002802405653001202433100002002445700001802465700001302483700002502496700002402521700001802545700001802563700002102581700002102602856004802623       2008                        eng d  a1525-506900aVoluntary brain regulation and communication with electrocorticogram signals.0 aVoluntary brain regulation and communication with electrocortico  c08/2008  a300-60 v133 a<p><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Brain-computer interfaces</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;(BCIs) can be used for communication in writing without muscular activity or for learning to control seizures by voluntary regulation of&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">brain</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;signals such as the electroencephalogram (EEG). Three of five patients with epilepsy were able to spell their names with electrocorticogram (ECoG) signals derived from motor-related areas within only one or two training sessions. Imagery of finger or tongue movements was classified with support-vector classification of autoregressive coefficients derived from the ECoG signals. After training of the classifier, binary classification responses were used to select letters from a&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">computer</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">-generated menu. Offline analysis showed increased theta activity in the unsuccessful patients, whereas the successful patients exhibited dominant sensorimotor rhythms that they could control. The high spatial resolution and increased signal-to-noise ratio in ECoG signals, combined with short training periods, may offer an alternative for communication in complete paralysis, locked-in syndrome, and motor restoration.</span></p>10aAdult10aBiofeedback, Psychology10aCerebral Cortex10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aDominance, Cerebral10aElectroencephalography10aEpilepsies, Partial10aFemale10aHumans10aImagination10aMale10aMiddle Aged10aMotor Activity10aMotor Cortex10aSignal Processing, Computer-Assisted10aSoftware10aSomatosensory Cortex10aTheta Rhythm10aUser-Computer Interface10aWriting1 aHinterberger, T1 aWidman, Guido1 aLal, T N1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aTangermann, Michael1 aRosenstiel, W1 aSchölkopf, B1 aElger, Christian1 aBirbaumer, Niels  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1849554103358nas a2200397   4500008004100000020001800041245009600059210006900155260015500224520204800379653003002427653000802457653001502465653003002480653002302510653002902533653003102562100002002593700001502613700001502628700001302643700001902656700001902675700001402694700001302708700002502721700002302746700001402769700002402783700001502807700002102822700001802843700001802861700002102879856006002900       2007                        eng d  a978026225604900aBrain Computer Interfaces for Communication in Paralysis: a Clinical-Experimental Approach.0 aBrain Computer Interfaces for Communication in Paralysis a Clini  bVirtual Library of Psychology at Saarland University and State Library, GERMANY, PsyDok [http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/phpoai/oai2.php] (Germany)3 a<p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 24px;">An overview of different approaches to brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) developed in our laboratory is given. An important clinical application of BCIs is to enable communication or environmental control in severely paralyzed patients. The BCI “Thought-Translation Device (TTD)” allows verbal communication through the voluntary self-regulation of brain signals (e.g., slow cortical potentials (SCPs)), which is achieved by operant feedback training. Humans' ability to self-regulate their SCPs is used to move a cursor toward a target that contains a selectable letter set. Two different approaches were followed to developWeb browsers that could be controlled with binary brain responses. Implementing more powerful classification methods including different signal parameters such as oscillatory features improved our BCI considerably. It was also tested on signals with implanted electrodes. Most BCIs provide the user with a visual feedback interface. Visually impaired patients require an auditory feedback mode. A procedure using auditory (sonified) feedback of multiple EEG parameters was evaluated. Properties of the auditory systems are reported and the results of two experiments with auditory feedback are presented. Clinical data of eight ALS patients demonstrated that all patients were able to acquire efficient brain control of one of the three available BCI systems (SCP, µ-rhythm, and P300), most of them used the SCP-BCI. A controlled comparison of the three systems in a group of ALS patients, however, showed that P300-BCI and the µ-BCI are faster and more easily acquired than SCP-BCI, at least in patients with some rudimentary motor control left. Six patients who started BCI training after entering the completely locked-in state did not achieve reliable communication skills with any BCI system. One completely locked-in patient was able t o communicate shortly with a ph-meter, but lost control afterward.</span></p>10abrain-computer interfaces10aEEG10aexperiment10aMedical sciences Medicine10aparalyzed patients10aslow cortical potentials10aThought-Translation Device1 aHinterberger, T1 aNijboer, F1 aKübler, A1 aMatuz, T1 aFurdea, Adrian1 aMochty, Ursula1 aJordan, M1 aLal, T N1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aMellinger, Jürgen1 aBensch, M1 aTangermann, Michael1 aWidmann, G1 aElger, Christian1 aRosenstiel, W1 aSchölkopf, B1 aBirbaumer, Niels  uhttp://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2008/2154/03540nas a2200457   4500008004100000022001400041245004900055210004100104260001200145300001100157490000700168520234400175653001002519653001502529653001402544653001002558653002702568653002702595653002102622653001302643653001102656653000902667653000902676653001902685653001102704653003102715653002702746653000902773653001302782653003302795653004102828653002802869100002302897700001902920700002102939700002002960700001802980700002102998700001503019856004803034       2007                        eng d  a1053-811900aAn MEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI).0 aMEGbased braincomputer interface BCI  c07/2007  a581-930 v363 a<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) allow for communicating intentions by mere brain activity, not involving muscles. Thus, BCIs may offer patients who have lost all voluntary muscle control the only possible way to communicate. Many recent studies have demonstrated that BCIs based on&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">electroencephalography</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">(</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">EEG</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">) can allow healthy and severely paralyzed individuals to communicate. While this approach is safe and inexpensive, communication is slow. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) provides signals with higher spatiotemporal resolution than&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">EEG</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;and could thus be used to explore whether these improved signal properties translate into increased BCI communication speed. In this study, we investigated the utility of an MEG-based BCI that uses voluntary amplitude modulation of sensorimotor mu and beta rhythms. To increase the signal-to-noise ratio, we present a simple spatial filtering method that takes the geometric properties of signal propagation in MEG into account, and we present methods that can process artifacts specifically encountered in an MEG-based BCI. Exemplarily, six participants were successfully trained to communicate binary decisions by imagery of limb movements using a feedback paradigm. Participants achieved significant mu rhythm self control within 32 min of feedback training. For a subgroup of three participants, we localized the origin of the amplitude modulated signal to the motor cortex. Our results suggest that an MEG-based BCI is feasible and efficient in terms of user training.</span></p>10aAdult10aAlgorithms10aArtifacts10aBrain10aElectroencephalography10aElectromagnetic Fields10aElectromyography10aFeedback10aFemale10aFoot10aHand10aHead Movements10aHumans10aMagnetic Resonance Imaging10aMagnetoencephalography10aMale10aMovement10aPrincipal Component Analysis10aSignal Processing, Computer-Assisted10aUser-Computer Interface1 aMellinger, Jürgen1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aBraun, Christoph1 aPreissl, Hubert1 aRosenstiel, W1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aKübler, A  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1747551103802nas a2200385   4500008004100000022001400041245008700055210006900142260001200211300001000223490000700233520264300240653001502883653001002898653003602908653002302944653002702967653002202994653001103016653002703027653002403054653003803078653002803116100002403144700002603168700002403194700001903218700002103237700002003258700002403278700002203302700002303324700002103347856004803368       2006                        eng d  a1534-432000aThe BCI competition III: Validating alternative approaches to actual BCI problems.0 aBCI competition III Validating alternative approaches to actual   c06/2006  a153-90 v143 a<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">A&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">brain-computer interface</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;(BCI) is a system that allows its users to control external devices with&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">brain</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">activity. 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's&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">brain</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">, which produces&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">brain</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;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&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">online</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;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.</span></p>10aAlgorithms10aBrain10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aDatabases, Factual10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials10aHumans10aNeuromuscular Diseases10aSoftware Validation10aTechnology Assessment, Biomedical10aUser-Computer Interface1 aBlankertz, Benjamin1 aMüller, Klaus-Robert1 aKrusienski, Dean, J1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aSchlögl, Alois1 aPfurtscheller, Gert1 aMillán, José, R1 aSchröder, Michael1 aBirbaumer, Niels  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1679228202785nas a2200445   4500008004100000022001400041245015300055210006900208260001200277300001000289490000700299520147600306653001501782653002801797653002101825653002701846653002701873653002201900653001101922653001101933653001601944653000901960653001601969653001401985653003501999653002802034100002502062700001302087700002302100700002002123700002102143700001502164700001902179700001802198700002102216700001802237700001502255700002102270856004802291       2006                        eng d  a1534-432000aClassifying EEG and ECoG signals without subject training for fast BCI implementation: comparison of nonparalyzed and completely paralyzed subjects.0 aClassifying EEG and ECoG signals without subject training for fa  c06/2006  a183-60 v143 a<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">We summarize results from a series of related studies that aim to develop a motor-imagery-</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">based</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">brain-computer interface</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;using a single recording session of electroencephalogram (EEG) or electrocorticogram (ECoG) signals for each subject. We apply the same experimental and analytical methods to 11 nonparalysed subjects (eight EEG, three ECoG), and to five paralyzed subjects (four EEG, one ECoG) who had been unable to communicate for some time. While it was relatively easy to obtain classifiable signals quickly from most of the nonparalyzed subjects, it proved impossible to classify the signals obtained from the paralyzed patients by the same methods. This highlights the fact that though certain BCI paradigms may work well with healthy subjects, this does not necessarily indicate success with the target user group. We outline possible reasons for this failure to transfer.</span></p>10aAlgorithms10aArtificial Intelligence10aCluster Analysis10aComputer User Training10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials10aFemale10aHumans10aImagination10aMale10aMiddle Aged10aParalysis10aPattern Recognition, Automated10aUser-Computer Interface1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aLal, T N1 aSchröder, Michael1 aHinterberger, T1 aWilhelm, Barbara1 aNijboer, F1 aMochty, Ursula1 aWidman, Guido1 aElger, Christian1 aSchölkopf, B1 aKübler, A1 aBirbaumer, Niels  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1679228901905nas a2200277   4500008004100000020002200041245007800063210006900141260003300210300001200243490000900255520107600264100002501340700001301365700002301378700002001401700001801421700002101439700001801460700002101478700001901499700002601518700002201544700001901566856004201585       2006                        eng d  a978-3-540-44412-100aClassifying Event-Related Desynchronization in EEG, ECoG and MEG Signals.0 aClassifying EventRelated Desynchronization in EEG ECoG and MEG S  bSpringer Berlin / Heidelberg  a404-4130 v41743 a<p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">We employed three different brain signal recording methods to perform Brain-Computer Interface studies on untrained subjects. In all cases, we aim to develop a system that could be used for fast, reliable preliminary screening in clinical BCI application, and we are interested in knowing how long screening sessions need to be. Good performance could be achieved, on average, after the first 200 trials in EEG, 75–100 trials in MEG, or 25–50 trials in ECoG. We compare the performance of Independent Component Analysis and the Common Spatial Pattern algorithm in each of the three sensor types, finding that spatial filtering does not help in MEG, helps a little in ECoG, and improves performance a great deal in EEG. In all cases the unsupervised ICA algorithm performed at least as well as the supervised CSP algorithm, which can suffer from poor generalization performance due to overfitting, particularly in ECoG and MEG.</span></p>1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aLal, T N1 aSchröder, Michael1 aHinterberger, T1 aWidman, Guido1 aElger, Christian1 aSchölkopf, B1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aFranke, Katrin1 aMüller, Klaus-Robert1 aNickolay, Bertram1 aSchäfer, Ralf  uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11861898_4101846nas a2200241   4500008004100000245008500041210006900126260001200195520097600207653003001183653005001213100001301263700002301276700002501299700002001324700002001344700002301364700001901387700001801406700002101424700002501445856013401470       2005                        eng d00aA Brain Computer Interface with Online Feedback based on Magnetoencephalography.0 aBrain Computer Interface with Online Feedback based on Magnetoen  c08/20053 a<p><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">The aim of this paper is to show that machine learning techniques can be used to derive a classifying function for human brain signal data measured by magnetoencephalography (MEG), for the use in a brain computer interface (BCI). This is especially helpful for evaluating quickly whether a BCI approach based on electroencephalography, on which training may be slower due to lower signalto-noise ratio, is likely to succeed. We apply RCE and regularized SVMs to the experimental data of ten healthy subjects performing a motor imagery task. Four subjects were able to use a trained classifier to write a short name. Further analysis gives evidence that the proposed imagination task is suboptimal for the possible extension to a multiclass interface. To the best of our knowledge this paper is the first working online MEG-based BCI and is therefore a “proof of concept”.</span></p>10aBrain Computer Interfaces10aUser Modelling for Computer Human Interaction1 aLal, T N1 aSchroeder, Michael1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aPreissl, Hubert1 aHinterberger, T1 aMellinger, Jürgen1 aBogdan, Martin1 aRosenstiel, W1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aSchoelkopf, Bernhard  uhttp://www.researchgate.net/publication/221346004_A_brain_computer_interface_with_online_feedback_based_on_magnetoencephalography01807nas a2200229   4500008004100000020001800041245006200059210006100121260000900182520111100191653003001302100001301332700002001345700001801365700002301383700002501406700001801431700002101449700001801470700002101488856006801509       2005                        eng d  a0-262-19534-800aMethods Towards Invasive Human Brain Computer Interfaces.0 aMethods Towards Invasive Human Brain Computer Interfaces  c20053 a<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><span style="font-size: 10.000000pt; font-family: 'Times';">During the last ten years there has been growing interest in the develop- ment of Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs). The field has mainly been driven by the needs of completely paralyzed patients to communicate. With a few exceptions, most human BCIs are based on extracranial elec- troencephalography (EEG). However, reported bit rates are still low. One reason for this is the low signal-to-noise ratio of the EEG [16]. We are currently investigating if BCIs based on electrocorticography (ECoG) are a viable alternative. In this paper we present the method and examples of intracranial EEG recordings of three epilepsy patients with electrode grids placed on the motor cortex. The patients were asked to repeat- edly imagine movements of two kinds, e.g., tongue or finger movements. We analyze the classifiability of the data using Support Vector Machines (SVMs) [18, 21] and Recursive Channel Elimination (RCE) [11].&nbsp;</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>10aBrain Computer Interfaces1 aLal, T N1 aHinterberger, T1 aWidman, Guido1 aSchroeder, Michael1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aRosenstiel, W1 aElger, Christian1 aSchölkopf, B1 aBirbaumer, Niels  uhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.64.848601195nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260001200214300001600226490000700242520044000249653002800689100001500717700001600732700001700748700002400765700001700789700001900806700002600825700002100851700002100872856004800893       2005                        eng d  a1526-632X00aPatients with ALS can use sensorimotor rhythms to operate a brain-computer interface.0 aPatients with ALS can use sensorimotor rhythms to operate a brai  c05/2005  a1775–17770 v643 aPeople with severe motor disabilities can maintain an acceptable quality of life if they can communicate. Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), which do not depend on muscle control, can provide communication. Four people severely disabled by ALS learned to operate a BCI with EEG rhythms recorded over sensorimotor cortex. These results suggest that a sensorimotor rhythm-based BCI could help maintain quality of life for people with ALS.10aUser-Computer Interface1 aKübler, A1 aNijboer, F.1 aMellinger, J1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aPawelzik, H.1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1591180902332nas a2200457   4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260001200214300001100226490000700237520103300244653000901277653003401286653002701320653002901347653003701376653001101413653001101424653001601435653000901451653001601460653001701476653001301493653001401506653002301520653002801543653002501571653002201596653002801618100001501646700001501661700002301676700002401699700001601723700001901739700002601758700002101784700002101805856004801826       2005                        eng d  a1526-632X00aPatients with ALS can use sensorimotor rhythms to operate a brain-computer interface.0 aPatients with ALS can use sensorimotor rhythms to operate a brai  c05/2005  a1775-70 v643 a<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">People with severe motor disabilities can maintain an acceptable quality of life if they can communicate.&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Brain-computer interfaces</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;(BCIs), which do not depend on muscle control, can provide communication. Four people severely disabled by ALS learned to operate a BCI with EEG rhythms recorded over sensorimotor cortex. These results suggest that a sensorimotor rhythm-</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">based</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;BCI could help maintain quality of life for people with ALS.</span></p>10aAged10aAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials, Motor10aEvoked Potentials, Somatosensory10aFemale10aHumans10aImagination10aMale10aMiddle Aged10aMotor Cortex10aMovement10aParalysis10aPhotic Stimulation10aProstheses and Implants10aSomatosensory Cortex10aTreatment Outcome10aUser-Computer Interface1 aKübler, A1 aNijboer, F1 aMellinger, Jürgen1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aPawelzik, H1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1591180902144nas a2200301   4500008004100000245008000041210006900121260001200190300001600202490000900218520113600227653002901363653002201392653002701414653002201441653003401463653002701497100002301524700001301547700002001560700001901580700002501599700002101624700001801645700001801663700003301681856012801714       2005                        eng d00aRobust EEG Channel Selection across Subjects for Brain-Computer Interfaces.0 aRobust EEG Channel Selection across Subjects for BrainComputer I  c01/2005  a3103–31120 v20053 a<p>Most EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI) paradigms come along with specific electrode positions, for example, for a visual-based BCI, electrode positions close to the primary visual cortex are used. For new BCI paradigms it is usually not known where task relevant activity can be measured from the scalp. For individual subjects, Lal et al. in 2004 showed that recording positions can be found without the use of prior knowledge about the paradigm used. However it remains unclear to what extent their method of recursive channel elimination (RCE) can be generalized across subjects. In this paper we transfer channel rankings from a group of subjects to a new subject. For motor imagery tasks the results are promising, although cross-subject channel selection does not quite achieve the performance of channel selection on data of single subjects. Although the RCE method was not provided with prior knowledge about the mental task, channels that are well known to be important (from a physiological point of view) were consistently selected whereas task-irrelevant channels were reliably disregarded.<em><br /></em></p>10abrain-computer interface10achannel selection10aElectroencephalography10afeature selection10arecursive channel elimination10asupport vector machine1 aSchröder, Michael1 aLal, T N1 aHinterberger, T1 aBogdan, Martin1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aRosenstiel, W1 aSchölkopf, B1 aVesin J M, EbrahimiEditor, T  uhttp://www.researchgate.net/publication/26532072_Robust_EEG_Channel_Selection_across_Subjects_for_Brain-Computer_Interfaces01486nas a2200169   4500008004100000245005800041210005400099260000900153520094500162653003001107100002501137700001301162700001401175700002101189700001801210856008801228       2004                        eng d00aAn Auditory Paradigm for Brain–Computer Interfaces.0 aAuditory Paradigm for Brain–Computer Interfaces  c20043 a<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><span style="font-size: 10.000000pt; font-family: 'CMR10';">Motivated by the particular problems involved in communicating with “locked-in” paralysed patients, we aim to develop a brain- computer interface that uses auditory stimuli. We describe a paradigm that allows a user to make a binary decision by focusing attention on one of two concurrent auditory stimulus sequences. Using Support Vector Machine classification and Recursive Chan- nel Elimination on the independent components of averaged event- related potentials, we show that an untrained user’s EEG data can be classified with an encouragingly high level of accuracy. This suggests that it is possible for users to modulate EEG signals in a single trial by the conscious direction of attention, well enough to be useful in BCI.&nbsp;</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>10aBrain Computer Interfaces1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aLal, T N1 aBierig, K1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aSchölkopf, B  uhttp://papers.nips.cc/paper/2551-an-auditory-paradigm-for-brain-computer-interfaces02760nas a2200433   4500008004100000022001400041245011000055210006900165260001200234300001200246490000700258520140000265653001001665653001501675653003401690653002801724653001001752653001401762653002301776653002701799653002201826653001101848653003101859653003201890653002801922100002401950700002601974700001902000700002402019700001902043700002102062700002002083700002002103700002402123700002002147700002302167700002102190856011502211       2004                        eng d  a0018-929400aThe BCI Competition 2003: Progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials.0 aBCI Competition 2003 Progress and perspectives in detection and   c06/2004  a1044-510 v513 aInterest in developing a new method of man-to-machine communication--a brain-computer interface (BCI)--has grown steadily over the past few decades. BCIs create a new communication channel between the brain and an output device by bypassing conventional motor output pathways of nerves and muscles. These systems use signals recorded from the scalp, the surface of the cortex, or from inside the brain to enable users to control a variety of applications including simple word-processing software and orthotics. BCI technology could therefore provide a new communication and control option for individuals who cannot otherwise express their wishes to the outside world. Signal processing and classification methods are essential tools in the development of improved BCI technology. We organized the BCI Competition 2003 to evaluate the current state of the art of these tools. Four laboratories well versed in EEG-based BCI research provided six data sets in a documented format. We made these data sets (i.e., labeled training sets and unlabeled test sets) and their descriptions available on the Internet. The goal in the competition was to maximize the performance measure for the test labels. Researchers worldwide tested their algorithms and competed for the best classification results. This paper describes the six data sets and the results and function of the most successful algorithms.10aAdult10aAlgorithms10aAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis10aArtificial Intelligence10aBrain10aCognition10aDatabases, Factual10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials10aHumans10aReproducibility of Results10aSensitivity and Specificity10aUser-Computer Interface1 aBlankertz, Benjamin1 aMüller, Klaus-Robert1 aCurio, Gabriel1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aSchlögl, Alois1 aNeuper, Christa1 aPfurtscheller, Gert1 aHinterberger, T1 aSchröder, Michael1 aBirbaumer, Niels  uhttps://www.neurotechcenter.org/publications/2004/bci-competition-2003-progress-and-perspectives-detection-and02685nas a2200433   4500008004100000022001400041245011000055210006900165260001200234300001600246490000700262520140200269653003101671653000801702653001601710653002901726653000801755653000801763653002801771653003601799653001401835653000901849653001901858653003201877653002901909100002401938700002601962700001901988700002402007700001902031700002102050700002002071700002002091700002402111700002402135700002302159700002102182856004802203       2004                        eng d  a0018-929400aThe BCI Competition 2003: progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials.0 aBCI Competition 2003 progress and perspectives in detection and   c06/2004  a1044–10510 v513 aInterest in developing a new method of man-to-machine communication–a brain-computer interface (BCI)–has grown steadily over the past few decades. BCIs create a new communication channel between the brain and an output device by bypassing conventional motor output pathways of nerves and muscles. These systems use signals recorded from the scalp, the surface of the cortex, or from inside the brain to enable users to control a variety of applications including simple word-processing software and orthotics. BCI technology could therefore provide a new communication and control option for individuals who cannot otherwise express their wishes to the outside world. Signal processing and classification methods are essential tools in the development of improved BCI technology. We organized the BCI Competition 2003 to evaluate the current state of the art of these tools. Four laboratories well versed in EEG-based BCI research provided six data sets in a documented format. We made these data sets (i.e., labeled training sets and unlabeled test sets) and their descriptions available on the Internet. The goal in the competition was to maximize the performance measure for the test labels. Researchers worldwide tested their algorithms and competed for the best classification results. This paper describes the six data sets and the results and function of the most successful algorithms.10aaugmentative communication10aBCI10abeta-rhythm10abrain-computer interface10aEEG10aERP10aimagined hand movements10alateralized readiness potential10amu-rhythm10aP30010aRehabilitation10asingle-trial classification10aslow cortical potentials1 aBlankertz, Benjamin1 aMüller, Klaus-Robert1 aCurio, Gabriel1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aSchlögl, Alois1 aNeuper, Christa1 aPfurtscheller, Gert1 aHinterberger, Thilo1 aSchröder, Michael1 aBirbaumer, Niels  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1518887602705nas a2200337   4500008004100000022001400041245007000055210006400125260001200189300001200201490000700213520166200220653001501882653001001897653001401907653003601921653002501957653002701982653002102009653003102030653002202061653001102083653002402094653002802118100001902146700002602165700002002191700002102211700002102232856011402253       2004                        eng d  a0018-929400aBCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system.0 aBCI2000 a generalpurpose braincomputer interface BCI system  c06/2004  a1034-430 v513 aMany 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.10aAlgorithms10aBrain10aCognition10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aComputer Peripherals10aElectroencephalography10aEquipment Design10aEquipment Failure Analysis10aEvoked Potentials10aHumans10aSystems Integration10aUser-Computer Interface1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aHinterberger, T1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttps://www.neurotechcenter.org/publications/2004/bci2000-general-purpose-brain-computer-interface-bci-system02279nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245007000055210006400125260001200189300001600201490000700217520166200224653002801886100001901914700002601933700002401959700002101983700002102004856004802025       2004                        eng d  a0018-929400aBCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system.0 aBCI2000 a generalpurpose braincomputer interface BCI system  c06/2004  a1034–10430 v513 aMany 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.10aUser-Computer Interface1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aHinterberger, Thilo1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1518887500690nas a2200181   4500008004100000245009300041210006900134100002300203700001500226700001600241700001900257700002600276700002400302700002100326700002100347700001500368856012500383       2004                        eng d00aP300 for communication: Evidence from patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).0 aP300 for communication Evidence from patients with amyotrophic l1 aMellinger, Jürgen1 aNijboer, F1 aPawelzik, H1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aKuebler, A  uhttps://www.neurotechcenter.org/publications/2004/p300-communication-evidence-patients-amyotrophic-lateral-sclerosis-als02907nas a2200325   4500008004100000022001400041245008700055210006900142260001200211300001300223490000700236520189600243653003102139653003502170653003302205653001902238100002402257700002702281700002302308700002302331700002202354700002202376700002002398700002202418700002102440700002102461700003002482700002102512856004802533       2003                        eng d  a1534-432000aBrain-computer interface technology: a review of the Second International Meeting.0 aBraincomputer interface technology a review of the Second Intern  c06/2003  a94–1090 v113 aThis paper summarizes the Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control, The Second International Meeting, held in Rensselaerville, NY, in June 2002. Sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and organized by the Wadsworth Center of the New York State Department of Health, the meeting addressed current work and future plans in brain-computer interface (BCI) research. Ninety-two researchers representing 38 different research groups from the United States, Canada, Europe, and China participated. The BCIs discussed at the meeting use electroencephalographic activity recorded from the scalp or single-neuron activity recorded within cortex to control cursor movement, select letters or icons, or operate neuroprostheses. 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 that recognizes the commands contained in the input and expresses them in device control. Current BCIs have maximum information transfer rates of up to 25 b/min. Achievement of greater speed and accuracy requires improvements in signal acquisition and processing, in translation algorithms, and in user training. These improvements depend on interdisciplinary cooperation among neuroscientists, engineers, computer programmers, psychologists, and rehabilitation specialists, and on adoption and widespread application of objective criteria for evaluating alternative methods. The practical use of BCI technology will be determined by the development of appropriate applications and identification of appropriate user groups, and will require careful attention to the needs and desires of individual users.10aaugmentative communication10aBrain-computer interface (BCI)10aelectroencephalography (EEG)10aRehabilitation1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aHeetderks, William, J.1 aTrejo, Leonard, J.1 aRymer, William, Z.1 aWeinrich, Michael1 aMoore, Melody, M.1 aKübler, Andrea1 aDobkin, Bruce, H.1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aDonchin, Emanuel1 aWolpaw, Elizabeth, Winter1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1289924706596nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245006100055210005900116260001200175300001100187490000800198520581800206653001906024653003606043653002106079653002706100653001106127653002806138100002106166700002106187700002606208700002406234700002406258856004806282       2002                        eng d  a1388-245700aBrain-computer interfaces for communication and control.0 aBraincomputer interfaces for communication and control  c06/2002  a767-910 v1133 a<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">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&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">control</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">technology 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 'locked in', 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&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">control</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">, 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&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">control</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;independent of activity in conventional motor output pathways; development of training methods for helping users to gain and maintain that&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">control</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">; 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&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">control</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;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&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">control</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;option for those with motor disabilities and might also give those without disabilities a supplementary&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">control</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;channel or a&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">control</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;channel useful in special circumstances.</span></p>10aBrain Diseases10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aComputer Systems10aElectroencephalography10aHumans10aUser-Computer Interface1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aPfurtscheller, Gert1 aVaughan, Theresa, M  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1204803801388nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245005900055210005600114260001200170300001400182490000800196520081100204653002801015100001501043700001901058700001501077700002101092700002101113856004801134       2001                        eng d  a0033-290900aBrain-computer communication: unlocking the locked in.0 aBraincomputer communication unlocking the locked in  c05/2001  a358–3750 v1273 aWith the increasing efficiency of life-support systems and better intensive care, more patients survive severe injuries of the brain and spinal cord. Many of these patients experience locked-in syndrome: The active mind is locked in a paralyzed body. Consequently, communication is extremely restricted or impossible. A muscle-independent communication channel overcomes this problem and is realized through a brain-computer interface, a direct connection between brain and computer. The number of technically elaborated brain-computer interfaces is in contrast with the number of systems used in the daily life of locked-in patients. It is hypothesized that a profound knowledge and consideration of psychological principles are necessary to make brain-computer interfaces feasible for locked-in patients.10aUser-Computer Interface1 aKübler, A1 aKotchoubey, B.1 aKaiser, J.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aBirbaumer, Niels  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1139330103091nas a2200373   4500008004100000022001400041245008600055210006900141260001200210300001100222490000600233520197800239653001502217653002002232653003602252653002102288653002702309653002202336653001102358653002702369653004102396653002802437100002102465700002102486700001902507700002602526700001702552700001902569700002102588700001802609700001802627700002402645856004802669       2000                        eng d  a1063-652800aBrain-computer interface technology: a review of the first international meeting.0 aBraincomputer interface technology a review of the first interna  c06/2000  a164-730 v83 a<p>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'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'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'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.</p>10aAlgorithms10aCerebral Cortex10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aDisabled Persons10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials10aHumans10aNeuromuscular Diseases10aSignal Processing, Computer-Assisted10aUser-Computer Interface1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aHeetderks, W J1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aPeckham, P H1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aDonchin, Emanuel1 aQuatrano, L A1 aRobinson, C J1 aVaughan, Theresa, M  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1089617802866nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245008600055210006900141260001200210300001400222490000600236520197100242653003102213653003502244653003302279100002102312700002102333700002202354700002602376700002002402700001902422700002102441700002102462700002102483700002402504856004802528       2000                        eng d  a1063-652800aBrain-computer interface technology: a review of the first international meeting.0 aBraincomputer interface technology a review of the first interna  c06/2000  a164–1730 v83 aOver 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'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'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'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.10aaugmentative communication10aBrain-computer interface (BCI)10aelectroencephalography (EEG)1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aHeetderks, W., J.1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aPeckham, P., H.1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aDonchin, Emanuel1 aQuatrano, L., A.1 aRobinson, C., J.1 aVaughan, Theresa, M  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10896178