01307nas a2200181 4500008004100000022001900041245003500060210003400095260003100129300001200160520078800172100002300960700001900983700002301002700002401025700002501049856005101074 2010 eng d a978-364202090200aUsing BCI2000 in BCI Research.0 aUsing BCI2000 in BCI Research bSpringer Berlin Heidelberg a259-2803 a

BCI2000 is a general-purpose system for brain–computer interface (BCI) research. It can also be used for data acquisition, stimulus presentation, and brain monitoring applications [18,27]. The mission of the BCI2000 project is to facilitate research and applications in these areas. BCI2000 has been in development since 2000 in a collaboration between the Wadsworth Center of the New York State Department of Health in Albany, New York, and the Institute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Neurobiology at the University of Tübingen, Germany. Many other individuals at different institutions world-wide have contributed to this project.

1 aMellinger, Jürgen1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aGraimann, Bernhard1 aPfurtscheller, Gert1 aAllison, Brendan, Z. uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02091-9_1503802nas 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

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'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.

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/1679228202685nas 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/1518887602760nas 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-and02353nas a2200229 4500008004100000022001400041245008900055210006900144260001200213300001400225490000700239520162900246653003101875653003501906653002701941653001301968100002301981700002602004700002102030700002402051856004802075 2004 eng d a1534-432000aConversion of EEG activity into cursor movement by a brain-computer interface (BCI).0 aConversion of EEG activity into cursor movement by a braincomput c09/2004 a331–3380 v123 aThe Wadsworth electroencephalogram (EEG)-based brain-computer interface (BCI) uses amplitude in mu or beta frequency bands over sensorimotor cortex to control cursor movement. Trained users can move the cursor in one or two dimensions. The primary goal of this research is to provide a new communication and control option for people with severe motor disabilities. Currently, cursor movements in each dimension are determined 10 times/s by an empirically derived linear function of one or two EEG features (i.e., spectral bands from different electrode locations). This study used offline analysis of data collected during system operation to explore methods for improving the accuracy of cursor movement. The data were gathered while users selected among three possible targets by controlling vertical [i.e., one-dimensional (1-D)] cursor movement. The three methods analyzed differ in the dimensionality of the cursor movement [1-D versus two-dimensional (2-D)] and in the type of the underlying function (linear versus nonlinear). We addressed two questions: Which method is best for classification (i.e., to determine from the EEG which target the user wants to hit)? How does the number of EEG features affect the performance of each method? All methods reached their optimal performance with 10-20 features. In offline simulation, the 2-D linear method and the 1-D nonlinear method improved performance significantly over the 1-D linear method. The 1-D linear method did not do so. These offline results suggest that the 1-D nonlinear or the 2-D linear cursor function will improve online operation of the BCI system.10aaugmentative communication10aBrain-computer interface (BCI)10aElectroencephalography10aFeedback1 aFabiani, Georg, E.1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aPfurtscheller, Gert uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1547319506596nas 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

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 '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 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.

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/12048038