02171nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245012100055210006900176260001200245300001100257490000700268520128300275653001501558653003001573653001401603653002101617653002701638653001601665653001101681653002201692653003201714100002001746700002201766700002101788700002401809856004801833       2015                        eng d  a1532-821X00aToward independent home use of brain-computer interfaces: a decision algorithm for selection of potential end-users.0 aToward independent home use of braincomputer interfaces a decisi  c03/2015  aS27-320 v963 a<p>Noninvasive brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) use scalp-recorded electrical activity from the brain to control an application. Over the past 20 years, research demonstrating that BCIs can provide communication and control to individuals with severe motor impairment has increased almost exponentially. Although considerable effort has been dedicated to offline analysis for improving signal detection and translation, far less effort has been made to conduct online studies with target populations. Thus, there remains a great need for both long-term and translational BCI studies that include individuals with disabilities in their own homes. Completing these studies is the only sure means to answer questions about BCI utility and reliability. Here we suggest an algorithm for candidate selection for electroencephalographic (EEG)-based BCI home studies. This algorithm takes into account BCI end-users and their environment and should assist in study design and substantially improve subject retention rates, thereby improving the overall efficacy of BCI home studies. It is the result of a workshop at the Fifth International BCI Meeting that allowed us to leverage the expertise of multiple research laboratories and people from multiple backgrounds in BCI research.</p>10aAlgorithms10abrain-computer interfaces10aCognition10aDisabled Persons10aElectroencephalography10aEnvironment10aHumans10aPatient Selection10aPhysical Therapy Modalities1 aKübler, Andrea1 aHolz, Elisa, Mira1 aSellers, Eric, W1 aVaughan, Theresa, M  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2572154402595nas a2200421   4500008004100000022001400041245009200055210006900147260001200216300001100228490000700239520137400246653001001620653000901630653003401639653002801673653003001701653002801731653002701759653003501786653001101821653001101832653000901843653001601852653001901868653002301887653002801910653001801938100002001956700002101976700002601997700001902023700001902042700001902061700002102080700002402101856004802125       2014                        eng d  a2167-922300aBrain-computer interface (BCI) evaluation in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.0 aBraincomputer interface BCI evaluation in people with amyotrophi  c06/2014  a207-150 v153 aBrain-computer interfaces (BCIs) might restore communication to people severely disabled by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or other disorders. We sought to: 1) define a protocol for determining whether a person with ALS can use a visual P300-based BCI; 2) determine what proportion of this population can use the BCI; and 3) identify factors affecting BCI performance. Twenty-five individuals with ALS completed an evaluation protocol using a standard 6 × 6 matrix and parameters selected by stepwise linear discrimination. With an 8-channel EEG montage, the subjects fell into two groups in BCI accuracy (chance accuracy 3%). Seventeen averaged 92 (± 3)% (range 71-100%), which is adequate for communication (G70 group). Eight averaged 12 (± 6)% (range 0-36%), inadequate for communication (L40 subject group). Performance did not correlate with disability: 11/17 (65%) of G70 subjects were severely disabled (i.e. ALSFRS-R < 5). All L40 subjects had visual impairments (e.g. nystagmus, diplopia, ptosis). P300 was larger and more anterior in G70 subjects. A 16-channel montage did not significantly improve accuracy. In conclusion, most people severely disabled by ALS could use a visual P300-based BCI for communication. In those who could not, visual impairment was the principal obstacle. For these individuals, auditory P300-based BCIs might be effective.10aAdult10aAged10aAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis10aBiofeedback, Psychology10abrain-computer interfaces10aCommunication Disorders10aElectroencephalography10aEvent-Related Potentials, P30010aFemale10aHumans10aMale10aMiddle Aged10aOnline Systems10aPhotic Stimulation10aPsychomotor Performance10aReaction Time1 aMcCane, Lynn, M1 aSellers, Eric, W1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aMak, Joseph, N1 aCarmack, Steve1 aZeitlin, Debra1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aVaughan, Theresa, M  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2455584303178nas a2200421   4500008004100000022001400041245009800055210006900153260001200222300001100234490000700245520196800252653001002220653000902230653001502239653002402254653003002278653003602308653002702344653002102371653003102392653001102423653001102434653000902445653002402454653001602478653001702494653002202511653002802533100002502561700001602586700001902602700002002621700002202641700002102663700002402684856004802708       2014                        eng d  a1741-255200aA practical, intuitive brain-computer interface for communicating 'yes' or 'no' by listening.0 apractical intuitive braincomputer interface for communicating ye  c06/2014  a0350030 v113 aOBJECTIVE:
Previous work has shown that it is possible to build an EEG-based binary brain-computer interface system (BCI) driven purely by shifts of attention to auditory stimuli. However, previous studies used abrupt, abstract stimuli that are often perceived as harsh and unpleasant, and whose lack of inherent meaning may make the interface unintuitive and difficult for beginners. We aimed to establish whether we could transition to a system based on more natural, intuitive stimuli (spoken words 'yes' and 'no') without loss of performance, and whether the system could be used by people in the locked-in state.
APPROACH:
We performed a counterbalanced, interleaved within-subject comparison between an auditory streaming BCI that used beep stimuli, and one that used word stimuli. Fourteen healthy volunteers performed two sessions each, on separate days. We also collected preliminary data from two subjects with advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), who used the word-based system to answer a set of simple yes-no questions.
MAIN RESULTS:
The N1, N2 and P3 event-related potentials elicited by words varied more between subjects than those elicited by beeps. However, the difference between responses to attended and unattended stimuli was more consistent with words than beeps. Healthy subjects' performance with word stimuli (mean 77% ± 3.3 s.e.) was slightly but not significantly better than their performance with beep stimuli (mean 73% ± 2.8 s.e.). The two subjects with ALS used the word-based BCI to answer questions with a level of accuracy similar to that of the healthy subjects.
SIGNIFICANCE:
Since performance using word stimuli was at least as good as performance using beeps, we recommend that auditory streaming BCI systems be built with word stimuli to make the system more pleasant and intuitive. Our preliminary data show that word-based streaming BCI is a promising tool for communication by people who are locked in.10aAdult10aAged10aAlgorithms10aAuditory Perception10abrain-computer interfaces10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aElectroencephalography10aEquipment Design10aEquipment Failure Analysis10aFemale10aHumans10aMale10aMan-Machine Systems10aMiddle Aged10aQuadriplegia10aTreatment Outcome10aUser-Computer Interface1 aHill, Jeremy, Jeremy1 aRicci, Erin1 aHaider, Sameah1 aMcCane, Lynn, M1 aHeckman, Susan, M1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aVaughan, Theresa, M  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2483827802977nas a2200361   4500008004100000022001400041245007400055210006800129260001200197300001100209490000700220520195300227653001202180653001002192653002702202653002202229653001102251653002702262653001302289653001302302653001602315653003102331653001702362653002802379100002402407700002602431700001902457700002502476700002402501700002102525700002102546856004802567       2006                        eng d  a1534-432000aThe Wadsworth BCI Research and Development Program: At Home with BCI.0 aWadsworth BCI Research and Development Program At Home with BCI  c06/2006  a229-330 v143 a<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">The ultimate goal of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology is to provide communication and control capacities to people with severe motor disabilities. BCI research at the Wadsworth Center focuses primarily on noninvasive,&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;">&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;">)-based BCI methods. We have shown that people, including those with severe motor disabilities, can learn to use sensorimotor rhythms (SMRs) to move a cursor rapidly and accurately in one or two dimensions. We have also improved P300-based BCI operation. We are now translating this laboratory-proven BCI technology into a system that can be used by severely disabled people in their homes with minimal ongoing technical oversight. To accomplish this, we have: improved our general-purpose BCI software (BCI2000); improved online adaptation and feature translation for SMR-based BCI operation; improved the accuracy and bandwidth of P300-based BCI operation; reduced the&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">complexity</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;of system hardware and software and begun to evaluate home system use in appropriate users. These developments have resulted in prototype systems for every day use in people's homes.</span></p>10aAnimals10aBrain10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials10aHumans10aNeuromuscular Diseases10aNew York10aResearch10aSwitzerland10aTherapy, Computer-Assisted10aUniversities10aUser-Computer Interface1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aSarnacki, William, A1 aKrusienski, Dean, J1 aSellers, Eric, W1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1679230103537nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245009500055210006900150260001200219300001200231490000800243520277200251653002903023653000803052653002703060653001303087653001403100653002403114100002603138700002603164700002403190700002103214856004803235       2005                        eng d  a1388-245700aBrain-computer interface (BCI) operation: signal and noise during early training sessions.0 aBraincomputer interface BCI operation signal and noise during ea  c01/2005  a56–620 v1163 aOBJECTIVE:
People can learn to control mu (8-12 Hz) or beta (18-25 Hz) rhythm amplitude in the electroencephalogram (EEG) recorded over sensorimotor cortex and use it to move a cursor to a target on a video screen. The recorded signal may also contain electromyogram (EMG) and other non-EEG artifacts. This study examines the presence and characteristics of EMG contamination during new users' initial brain-computer interface (BCI) training sessions, as they first attempt to acquire control over mu or beta rhythm amplitude and to use that control to move a cursor to a target.
METHODS:
In the standard one-dimensional format, a target appears along the right edge of the screen and 1s later the cursor appears in the middle of the left edge and moves across the screen at a fixed rate with its vertical movement controlled by a linear function of mu or beta rhythm amplitude. In the basic two-choice version, the target occupies the upper or lower half of the right edge. The user's task is to move the cursor vertically so that it hits the target when it reaches the right edge. The present data comprise the first 10 sessions of BCI training from each of 7 users. Their data were selected to illustrate the variations seen in EMG contamination across users.
RESULTS:
Five of the 7 users learned to change rhythm amplitude appropriately, so that the cursor hit the target. Three of these 5 showed no evidence of EMG contamination. In the other two of these 5, EMG was prominent in early sessions, and tended to be associated with errors rather than with hits. As EEG control improved over the 10 sessions, this EMG contamination disappeared. In the remaining two users, who never acquired actual EEG control, EMG was prominent in initial sessions and tended to move the cursor to the target. This EMG contamination was still detectable by Session 10.
CONCLUSIONS:
EMG contamination arising from cranial muscles is often present early in BCI training and gradually wanes. In those users who eventually acquire EEG control, early target-related EMG contamination may be most prominent for unsuccessful trials, and may reflect user frustration. In those users who never acquire EEG control, EMG may initially serve to move the cursor toward the target. Careful and comprehensive topographical and spectral analyses throughout user training are essential for detecting EMG contamination and differentiating between cursor control provided by EEG control and cursor control provided by EMG contamination.
SIGNIFICANCE:
Artifacts such as EMG are common in EEG recordings. Comprehensive spectral and topographical analyses are necessary to detect them and ensure that they do not masquerade as, or interfere with acquisition of, actual EEG-based cursor control.10abrain-computer interface10aEEG10aElectroencephalography10aLearning10amu rhythm10asensorimotor cortex1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aSarnacki, William, A.1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aWolpaw, Jonathan  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1558918402332nas 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/1591180902760nas 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-and03064nas a2200373   4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260001200214300001000226490000700236520200500243653002902248653001002277653001502287653001402302653001002316653001802326653002702344653003002371653001302401653001102414653001602425653002802441653001302469653002002482653002802502653002202530100002102552700002602573700002402599700001902623856004802642       2003                        eng d  a1534-432000aThe Wadsworth Center brain-computer interface (BCI) research and development program.0 aWadsworth Center braincomputer interface BCI research and develo  c06/2003  a204-70 v113 a<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Brain-computer interface (BCI) research at the Wadsworth Center has focused primarily on using electroencephalogram (EEG) rhythms recorded from the scalp over sensorimotor cortex 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;cursor movement in one or two dimensions. Recent and current studies seek to improve the speed and accuracy of this&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;by improving the selection of signal features and their translation into device commands, by incorporating additional signal features, and by optimizing the adaptive interaction between the user and system. In addition, to facilitate the evaluation, comparison, and combination of alternative BCI methods, we have developed a general-purpose BCI system called BCI-2000 and have made it available to other research&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">groups</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">. Finally, in collaboration with several other&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">groups</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">, we are developing simple BCI applications and are testing their practicality and long-term value for people with severe motor disabilities.</span></p>10aAcademic Medical Centers10aAdult10aAlgorithms10aArtifacts10aBrain10aBrain Mapping10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials, Visual10aFeedback10aHumans10aMiddle Aged10aNervous System Diseases10aResearch10aResearch Design10aUser-Computer Interface10aVisual Perception1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aMcFarland, Dennis, J.1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aSchalk, Gerwin  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1289927506596nas 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/1204803803091nas 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/1089617802088nas 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