03082nas a2200313 4500008004100000022001400041245013800055210006900193260001600262490000700278520206400285653001002349653002102359653002502380653002702405653003702432653001102469653001102480653000902491653001702500653001602517653003102533653002502564653001602589100001702605700002102622700001302643856011202656 2026 eng d a1741-255200aMethodological optimization for eliciting robust median nerve somatosensory evoked potentials for realtime single trial applications.0 aMethodological optimization for eliciting robust median nerve so c2026 Jan 090 v233 a

Single-trial measurement of median nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) with noninvasive electroencephalography (EEG) is challenging due to low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), limiting its use in real-time neurorehabilitation applications. We describe and evaluate methodological optimizations for eliciting reliable median nerve SEPs measurable in real time, with reduced reliance on post-processing.In twelve healthy participants, two sessions each, SEPs were assessed at three pulse widths (0.1, 0.5, 1 ms), at a low-frequency stimulation (0.5 Hz ± 10%), and at an intensity sufficient to evoke consistent and robust sensory nerve action potentials and compound muscle action potentials. The evoked potential operant conditioning system platform was used to monitor responses in real time. Feasibility was also evaluated in a participant with incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI).SEP P50 and N70 were reliably elicited in healthy participants, and in individual with iSCI, across all tested pulse widths with minimal discomfort. N70 amplitude increased significantly with pulse width (χ2= 17.64,= 0.0001,= 0.80), while P50 amplitude remained unchanged. SNR showed a significant pulse width-dependent increase (χ2= 7.82,= 0.02,= 0.35) with improvements of 40% and 52% at 0.5 and 1 ms, respectively. N70 single-trial separability significantly improved at 1 ms (AUC of 0.83,χ2= 8.17,= 0.017), including the iSCI participant (0.84-less impaired hand, 0.79-more impaired hand). Test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.70-0.84,< 0.05) was highest at 0.5 ms, indicating more consistent N70 and P50 measurements across sessions at a longer pulse width.Robust median nerve SEPs can be measured at single trials with methodological optimizations such as a longer pulse width (0.5-1 ms), low frequency (0.5 Hz), a consistent afferent excitation guided by nerve and muscle responses, and a robust EEG acquisition system. This setup can be useful for real time SEP-based brain computer interface applications for rehabilitation.

10aAdult10aComputer Systems10aElectric Stimulation10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials, Somatosensory10aFemale10aHumans10aMale10aMedian Nerve10aMiddle Aged10aReproducibility of Results10aSpinal Cord Injuries10aYoung Adult1 aGupta, Disha1 aBrangaccio, Jodi1 aHill, NJ uhttps://www.neurotechcenter.org/publications/2026/methodological-optimization-eliciting-robust-median-nerve01606nas a2200301 4500008004100000022001400041245007000055210006600125260001200191300001200203490000700215520071500222653001000937653002100947653002700968653002200995653001101017653002501028653003101053653004101084653001701125653002801142100002001170700002301190700001901213700002401232856004801256 2010 eng d a1558-253100aA procedure for measuring latencies in brain-computer interfaces.0 aprocedure for measuring latencies in braincomputer interfaces c06/2010 a1785-970 v573 a

Brain-computer interface (BCI) systems must process neural signals with consistent timing in order to support adequate system performance. Thus, it is important to have the capability to determine whether a particular BCI configuration (i.e., hardware and software) provides adequate timing performance for a particular experiment. This report presents a method of measuring and quantifying different aspects of system timing in several typical BCI experiments across a range of settings, and presents comprehensive measures of expected overall system latency for each experimental configuration.

10aBrain10aComputer Systems10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials10aHumans10aModels, Neurological10aReproducibility of Results10aSignal Processing, Computer-Assisted10aTime Factors10aUser-Computer Interface1 aWilson, Adam, J1 aMellinger, Jürgen1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWilliams, Justin, C uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2040378103145nas a2200373 4500008004100000022001400041245005700055210005400112260001200166300001000178490000700188520212100195653001002316653001502326653001802341653002102359653003302380653002702413653001302440653002202453653001102475653001102486653000902497653003502506653003102541653003202572100001902604700001902623700001902642700001702661700002402678700002102702856004802723 2008 eng d a1095-957200aReal-time detection of event-related brain activity.0 aRealtime detection of eventrelated brain activity c11/2008 a245-90 v433 a

The complexity and inter-individual variation of brain signals impedes real-time detection of events in raw signals. To convert these complex signals into results that can be readily understood, current approaches usually apply statistical methods to data from known conditions after all data have been collected. The capability to provide meaningful visualization of complex brain signals without the requirement to initially collect data from all conditions would provide a new tool, essentially a new imaging technique, that would open up new avenues for the study of brain function. Here we show that a new analysis approach, called SIGFRIED, can overcome this serious limitation of current methods. SIGFRIED can visualize brain signal changes without requiring prior data collection from all conditions. This capacity is particularly well suited to applications in which comprehensive prior data collection is impossible or impractical, such as intraoperative localization of cortical function or detection of epileptic seizures.

10aAdult10aAlgorithms10aBrain Mapping10aComputer Systems10aDiagnosis, Computer-Assisted10aElectroencephalography10aEpilepsy10aEvoked Potentials10aFemale10aHumans10aMale10aPattern Recognition, Automated10aReproducibility of Results10aSensitivity and Specificity1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aLeuthardt, E C1 aBrunner, Peter1 aOjemann, J G1 aGerhardt, Lester, A1 aWolpaw, Jonathan uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1871854401913nas a2200349 4500008004100000022001400041245007900055210006900134260001200203300001100215520081300226653001001039653003601049653002101085653001101106653003101117653002001148653002201168653001301190653002801203100001601231700001801247700002101265700001901286700002101305700002201326700002101348700002001369700002701389700002201416856012501438 2007 eng d a1557-170X00aNon-invasive brain-computer interface system to operate assistive devices.0 aNoninvasive braincomputer interface system to operate assistive  c04/2007 a2532-53 aIn this pilot study, a system that allows disabled persons to improve or recover their mobility and communication within the surrounding environment was implemented and validated. The system is based on a software controller that offers to the user a communication interface that is matched with the individual's residual motor abilities. Fourteen patients with severe motor disabilities due to progressive neurodegenerative disorders were trained to use the system prototype under a rehabilitation program. All users utilized regular assistive control options (e.g., microswitches or head trackers) while four patients learned to operate the system by means of a non-invasive EEG-based Brain-Computer Interface, based on the subjects' voluntary modulations of EEG sensorimotor rhythms recorded on the scalp.10aBrain10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aComputer Systems10aHumans10aNeurodegenerative Diseases10aQuality of Life10aSelf-Help Devices10aSoftware10aUser-Computer Interface1 aCincotti, F1 aAloise, Fabio1 aBufalari, Simona1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aOriolo, Giuseppe1 aCherubini, Andrea1 aDavide, Fabrizio1 aBabiloni, Fabio1 aMarciani, Maria Grazia1 aMattia, Donatella uhttps://www.neurotechcenter.org/publications/2007/non-invasive-brain-computer-interface-system-operate-assistive-devices06596nas 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