02353nas 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/1547319502522nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245008500055210006900140260001200209300001400221490000700235520169700242653003101939653002701970653001601997653001302013653001402026653002502040653001502065653001902080653002402099100002602123700002602149700002102175856004802196       2003                        eng d  a0301-051100aBrain-computer interface (BCI) operation: optimizing information transfer rates.0 aBraincomputer interface BCI operation optimizing information tra  c07/2003  a237–2510 v633 aPeople can learn to control mu (8-12 Hz) or beta (18-25 Hz) rhythm amplitude in the EEG recorded over sensorimotor cortex and use it to move a cursor to a target on a video screen. In the present version of the cursor movement task, vertical cursor movement is a linear function of mu or beta rhythm amplitude. At the same time the cursor moves horizontally from left to right at a fixed rate. A target occupies 50% (2-target task) to 20% (5-target task) of the right edge of the screen. The user's task is to move the cursor vertically so that it hits the target when it reaches the right edge. The goal of the present study was to optimize system performance. To accomplish this, we evaluated the impact on system performance of number of targets (i.e. 2-5) and trial duration (i.e. horizontal movement time from 1 to 4 s). Performance was measured as accuracy (percent of targets selected correctly) and also as bit rate (bits/min) (which incorporates, in addition to accuracy, speed and the number of possible targets). Accuracy declined as target number increased. At the same time, for six of eight users, four targets yielded the maximum bit rate. Accuracy increased as movement time increased. At the same time, the movement time with the highest bit rate varied across users from 2 to 4 s. These results indicate that task parameters such as target number and trial duration can markedly affect system performance. They also indicate that optimal parameter values vary across users. Selection of parameters suited both to the specific user and the requirements of the specific application is likely to be a key factor in maximizing the success of EEG-based communication and control.10aaugmentative communication10aElectroencephalography10ainformation10aLearning10amu rhythm10aoperant conditioning10aprosthesis10aRehabilitation10asensorimotor cortex1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1285316901629nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245010300055210006900158260001200227300001200239490000800251520078600259653003101045653002901076653002801105653002701133653002401160653002001184653001901204100001901223700002601242700002601268700002101294856004801315       2003                        eng d  a0304-394000aElectroencephalographic(EEG)-based communication: EEG control versus system performance in humans.0 aElectroencephalographicEEGbased communication EEG control versus  c07/2002  a89–920 v3453 aPeople can learn to control electroencephalographic (EEG) sensorimotor rhythm amplitude so as to move a cursor to select among choices on a computer screen. We explored the dependence of system performance on EEG control. Users moved the cursor to reach a target at one of four possible locations. EEG control was measured as the correlation (r(2)) between rhythm amplitude and target location. Performance was measured as accuracy (% of targets hit) and as information transfer rate (bits/trial). The relationship between EEG control and accuracy can be approximated by a linear function that is constant for all users. The results facilitate offline predictions of the effects on performance of using different EEG features or combinations of features to control cursor movement.10aaugmentative communication10abrain-computer interface10abrain-machine interface10aElectroencephalography10amu and beta rhythms10aneuroprosthesis10aRehabilitation1 aSheikh, Hesham1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1282117802866nas 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/1089617801315nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245006100055210005800116260001200174300001600186490000800202520045900210653003100669653002900700653002700729653002000756653002900776653002800805653001400833653001900847653002400866100001900890700002100909700002600930700002100956856004800977       2000                        eng d  a1388-245700aEEG-based communication: presence of an error potential.0 aEEGbased communication presence of an error potential  c12/2000  a2138–21440 v1113 aEEG-based communication could be a valuable new augmentative communication technology for those with severe motor disabilities. Like all communication methods, it faces the problem of errors in transmission. In the Wadsworth EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI) system, subjects learn to use mu or beta rhythm amplitude to move a cursor to targets on a computer screen. While cursor movement is highly accurate in trained subjects, it is not perfect.10aaugmentative communication10abrain-computer interface10aElectroencephalography10aerror potential10aerror related negativity10aevent related potential10amu rhythm10aRehabilitation10asensorimotor cortex1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aPfurtscheller, G  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1109076302088nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245006600055210006300121260001200184300001400196490000800210520131500218653003101533653001701564653002701581653002101608653001401629653001901643653002401662100002401686700001801710700002601728700002101754856004701775       1998                        eng d  a0013-469400aEEG-based communication: analysis of concurrent EMG activity.0 aEEGbased communication analysis of concurrent EMG activity  c12/1998  a428–4330 v1073 aOBJECTIVE:
Recent studies indicate that people can learn to control the amplitude of mu or beta rhythms in the EEG recorded from the scalp over sensorimotor cortex and can use that control to move a cursor to targets on the computer screen. While subjects do not move during performance, it is possible that inapparent or unconscious muscle contractions contribute to the changes in the mu and beta rhythm activity responsible for cursor movement. We evaluated this possibility.
METHODS:
EMG was recorded from 10 distal limb muscle groups while five trained subjects used mu or beta rhythms to move a cursor to targets at the bottom or top edge of a computer screen.
RESULTS:
EMG activity was very low during performance, averaging 4.0+/-4.4% (SD) of maximum voluntary contraction. Most important, the correlation, measured as r2, between target position and EMG activity averaged only 0.01+/-0.02, much lower than the correlation between target position and the EEG activity that controlled cursor movement, which averaged 0.39+/-0.18.
CONCLUSIONS:
These results strongly support the conclusion that EEG-based cursor control does no depend on concurrent muscle activity. EEG-based communication and control might provide a new augmentative communication option for those with severe motor disabilities.10aaugmentative communication10aconditioning10aElectroencephalography10aElectromyography10amu rhythm10aRehabilitation10asensorimotor cortex1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aMiner, L., A.1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9922089