03178nas 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/2483827807041nas a2200313 4500008004100000022001400041245008200055210006900137260001200206300001100218490000600229520615100235653002806386653001006414653001806424653002706442653002106469653003106490653001106521653002406532653001306556653002806569100001906597700001506616700001306631700001606644700001906660856004806679 2011 eng d a1741-255200aCurrent Trends in Hardware and Software for Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs).0 aCurrent Trends in Hardware and Software for BrainComputer Interf c04/2011 a0250010 v83 a

brain-computer interface (BCI) provides a non-muscular communication channel to people with and without disabilities. BCI devices consist of hardware and software. BCI hardware records signals from the brain, either invasively or non-invasively, using a series of device components. BCI software then translates these signals into device output commands and provides feedback. One may categorize different types of BCI applications into the following four categories: basic research, clinical/translational research, consumer products, and emerging applications. These four categories use BCI hardware and software, but have different sets of requirements. For example, while basic research needs to explore a wide range of system configurations, and thus requires a wide range of hardware and software capabilities, applications in the other three categories may be designed for relatively narrow purposes and thus may only need a very limited subset of capabilities. This paper summarizes technical aspects for each of these four categories of BCI applications. The results indicate that BCI technology is in transition from isolated demonstrations to systematic research and commercial development. This process requires several multidisciplinary efforts, including the development of better integrated and more robust BCI hardware and software, the definition of standardized interfaces, and the developmentof certification, dissemination and reimbursement procedures.

10aBiofeedback, Psychology10aBrain10aBrain Mapping10aElectroencephalography10aEquipment Design10aEquipment Failure Analysis10aHumans10aMan-Machine Systems10aSoftware10aUser-Computer Interface1 aBrunner, Peter1 aBianchi, L1 aGuger, C1 aCincotti, F1 aSchalk, Gerwin uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2143653602156nas a2200337 4500008004100000022001400041245008300055210006900138260001200207300000700219490000700226520120000233653001001433653002001443653001101463653002401474653001701498653001301515653002301528653002401551653002801575653001301603653004101616653002801657100001901685700001901704700001801723700001601741700001301757856004801770 2009 eng d a1092-068400aEvolution of brain-computer interfaces: going beyond classic motor physiology.0 aEvolution of braincomputer interfaces going beyond classic motor c07/2009 aE40 v273 a

The notion that a computer can decode brain signals to infer the intentions of a human and then enact those intentions directly through a machine is becoming a realistic technical possibility. These types of devices are known as brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). The evolution of these neuroprosthetic technologies could have significant implications for patients with motor disabilities by enhancing their ability to interact and communicate with their environment. The cortical physiology most investigated and used for device control has been brain signals from the primary motor cortex. To date, this classic motor physiology has been an effective substrate for demonstrating the potential efficacy of BCI-based control. However, emerging research now stands to further enhance our understanding of the cortical physiology underpinning human intent and provide further signals for more complex brain-derived control. In this review, the authors report the current status of BCIs and detail the emerging research trends that stand to augment clinical applications in the future.

10aBrain10aCerebral Cortex10aHumans10aMan-Machine Systems10aMotor Cortex10aMovement10aMovement Disorders10aNeuronal Plasticity10aProstheses and Implants10aResearch10aSignal Processing, Computer-Assisted10aUser-Computer Interface1 aLeuthardt, E C1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aRoland, Jarod1 aRouse, Adam1 aMoran, D uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1956989205137nas a2200373 4500008004100000022001400041245007500055210006900130260001200199300001000211490000800221520406800229653001004297653001504307653001004322653001804332653002404350653002704374653001104401653000904412653002404421653002404445653001904469653003604488653004104524653002404565653002804589100001904617700001904636700002404655700001504679700002104694856004804715 2008 eng d a0165-027000aBrain-computer interfaces (BCIs): Detection Instead of Classification.0 aBraincomputer interfaces BCIs Detection Instead of Classificatio c01/2008 a51-620 v1673 a

Many studies over the past two decades have shown that people can use brain signals to convey their intent to a computer through brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). These devices operate by recording signals from the brain and translating these signals into device commands. They can be used by people who are severely paralyzed to communicate without any use of muscle activity. One of the major impediments in translating this novel technology into clinical applications is the current requirement for preliminary analyses to identify the brain signal features best suited for communication. This paper introduces and validates signal detection, which does not require such analysis procedures, as a new concept in BCI signal processing. This detection concept is realized with Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) that are used to model resting brain activity so that any change in relevant brain signals can be detected. It is implemented in a package called SIGFRIED (SIGnal modeling For Real-time Identification and Event Detection). The results indicate that SIGFRIED produces results that are within the range of those achieved using a common analysis strategy that requires preliminary identification of signal features. They indicate that such laborious analysis procedures could be replaced by merely recording brain signals during rest. In summary, this paper demonstrates how SIGFRIED could be used to overcome one of the present impediments to translation of laboratory BCI demonstrations into clinically practical applications.

10aAdult10aAlgorithms10aBrain10aBrain Mapping10aElectrocardiography10aElectroencephalography10aHumans10aMale10aMan-Machine Systems10aNormal Distribution10aOnline Systems10aSignal Detection, Psychological10aSignal Processing, Computer-Assisted10aSoftware Validation10aUser-Computer Interface1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aBrunner, Peter1 aGerhardt, Lester, A1 aBischof, H1 aWolpaw, Jonathan uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1792013401675nas a2200397 4500008004100000022001400041245007000055210006600125260001200191300001100203490000700214520056900221653001500790653001800805653001000823653003600833653001400869653002700883653002100910653001100931653002100942653002400963653002700987653001301014653002801027100001601055700001501071700001601086700001301102700002301115700002201138700002301160700002701183700001901210856004801229 2006 eng d a1534-432000aBCI meeting 2005 - Workshop on Technology: Hardware and Software.0 aBCI meeting 2005 Workshop on Technology Hardware and Software c06/2006 a128-310 v143 a

This paper describes the outcome of discussions held during the Third International BCI Meeting at a workshop to review and evaluate the current state of BCI-related hardware and software. Technical requirements and current technologies, standardization procedures and future trends are covered. The main conclusion was recognition of the need to focus technical requirements on the users' needs and the need for consistent standards in BCI research.

10aAlgorithms10aBiotechnology10aBrain10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aComputers10aElectroencephalography10aEquipment Design10aHumans10aInternationality10aMan-Machine Systems10aNeuromuscular Diseases10aSoftware10aUser-Computer Interface1 aCincotti, F1 aBianchi, L1 aBirch, Gary1 aGuger, C1 aMellinger, Jürgen1 aScherer, Reinhold1 aSchmidt, Robert, N1 aYáñez Suárez, Oscar1 aSchalk, Gerwin uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1679227602202nas a2200373 4500008004100000022001400041245007800055210006900133260001200202300001100214490000700225520114300232653001001375653001801385653002001403653003601423653002501459653002201484653001101506653001101517653001601528653000901544653002401553653002701577653002401604653002801628653001301656100002001669700002501689700002301714700001901737700002401756856004801780 2006 eng d a1534-432000aECoG factors underlying multimodal control of a brain-computer interface.0 aECoG factors underlying multimodal control of a braincomputer in c06/2006 a246-500 v143 a

Most current brain-computer interface (BCI) systems for humans use electroencephalographic activity recorded from the scalp, and may be limited in many ways. Electrocorticography (ECoG) is believed to be a minimally-invasive alternative to electroencephalogram (EEG) for BCI systems, yielding superior signal characteristics that could allow rapid user training and faster communication rates. In addition, our preliminary results suggest that brain regions other than the sensorimotor cortex, such as auditory cortex, may be trained to control a BCI system using similar methods as those used to train motor regions of the brain. This could prove to be vital for users who have neurological disease, head trauma, or other conditions precluding the use of sensorimotor cortex for BCI control.

10aAdult10aBrain Mapping10aCerebral Cortex10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aComputer Peripherals10aEvoked Potentials10aFemale10aHumans10aImagination10aMale10aMan-Machine Systems10aNeuromuscular Diseases10aSystems Integration10aUser-Computer Interface10aVolition1 aWilson, Adam, J1 aFelton, Elizabeth, A1 aGarell, Charles, P1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWilliams, Justin, C uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1679230503287nas a2200265 4500008004100000022001400041245007900055210006900134260001200203300002600215490000700241520252600248653001002774653001102784653002402795653001302819653001702832653002802849653002802877100001902905700001902924700001302943700001702956856004802973 2006 eng d a1524-404000aThe emerging world of motor neuroprosthetics: a neurosurgical perspective.0 aemerging world of motor neuroprosthetics a neurosurgical perspec c07/2006 a1-14; discussion 1-140 v593 a

A MOTOR NEUROPROSTHETIC device, or brain computer interface, is a machine that can take some type of signal from the brain and convert that information into overt device control such that it reflects the intentions of the user's brain. In essence, these constructs can decode the electrophysiological signals representing motor intent. With the parallel evolution of neuroscience, engineering, and rapid computing, the era of clinical neuroprosthetics is approaching as a practical reality for people with severe motor impairment. Patients with such diseases as spinal cord injury, stroke, limb loss, and neuromuscular disorders may benefit through the implantation of these brain computer interfaces that serve to augment their ability to communicate and interact with their environment. In the upcoming years, it will be important for the neurosurgeon to understand what a brain computer interface is, its fundamental principle of operation, and what the salient surgical issues are when considering implantation. We review the current state of the field of motor neuroprosthetics research, the early clinical applications, and the essential considerations from a neurosurgical perspective for the future.

10aBrain10aHumans10aMan-Machine Systems10aMovement10aNeurosurgery10aProstheses and Implants10aUser-Computer Interface1 aLeuthardt, E C1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aMoran, D1 aOjemann, J G uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16823294