%0 Journal Article %J Neuroimage %D 2007 %T An MEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI). %A Mellinger, Jürgen %A Gerwin Schalk %A Christoph Braun %A Preissl, Hubert %A Rosenstiel, W. %A Niels Birbaumer %A Kübler, A. %K Adult %K Algorithms %K Artifacts %K Brain %K Electroencephalography %K Electromagnetic Fields %K Electromyography %K Feedback %K Female %K Foot %K Hand %K Head Movements %K Humans %K Magnetic Resonance Imaging %K Magnetoencephalography %K Male %K Movement %K Principal Component Analysis %K Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted %K User-Computer Interface %X

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) allow for communicating intentions by mere brain activity, not involving muscles. Thus, BCIs may offer patients who have lost all voluntary muscle control the only possible way to communicate. Many recent studies have demonstrated that BCIs based on electroencephalography(EEG) can allow healthy and severely paralyzed individuals to communicate. While this approach is safe and inexpensive, communication is slow. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) provides signals with higher spatiotemporal resolution than EEG and could thus be used to explore whether these improved signal properties translate into increased BCI communication speed. In this study, we investigated the utility of an MEG-based BCI that uses voluntary amplitude modulation of sensorimotor mu and beta rhythms. To increase the signal-to-noise ratio, we present a simple spatial filtering method that takes the geometric properties of signal propagation in MEG into account, and we present methods that can process artifacts specifically encountered in an MEG-based BCI. Exemplarily, six participants were successfully trained to communicate binary decisions by imagery of limb movements using a feedback paradigm. Participants achieved significant mu rhythm self control within 32 min of feedback training. For a subgroup of three participants, we localized the origin of the amplitude modulated signal to the motor cortex. Our results suggest that an MEG-based BCI is feasible and efficient in terms of user training.

%B Neuroimage %V 36 %P 581-93 %8 07/2007 %G eng %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17475511 %N 3 %R 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.019 %0 Journal Article %J IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng %D 2006 %T The BCI competition III: Validating alternative approaches to actual BCI problems. %A Benjamin Blankertz %A Müller, Klaus-Robert %A Krusienski, Dean J %A Gerwin Schalk %A Jonathan Wolpaw %A Schlögl, Alois %A Pfurtscheller, Gert %A Millán, José del R %A Schröder, Michael %A Niels Birbaumer %K Algorithms %K Brain %K Communication Aids for Disabled %K Databases, Factual %K Electroencephalography %K Evoked Potentials %K Humans %K Neuromuscular Diseases %K Software Validation %K Technology Assessment, Biomedical %K User-Computer Interface %X

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.

%B IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng %V 14 %P 153-9 %8 06/2006 %G eng %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16792282 %N 2 %R 10.1109/TNSRE.2006.875642 %0 Journal Article %J IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng %D 2006 %T Classifying EEG and ECoG signals without subject training for fast BCI implementation: comparison of nonparalyzed and completely paralyzed subjects. %A Jeremy Jeremy Hill %A Lal, T.N %A Schröder, Michael %A Hinterberger, T. %A Wilhelm, Barbara %A Nijboer, F %A Mochty, Ursula %A Widman, Guido %A Elger, Christian %A Schölkopf, B %A Kübler, A. %A Niels Birbaumer %K Algorithms %K Artificial Intelligence %K Cluster Analysis %K Computer User Training %K Electroencephalography %K Evoked Potentials %K Female %K Humans %K Imagination %K Male %K Middle Aged %K Paralysis %K Pattern Recognition, Automated %K User-Computer Interface %X

We summarize results from a series of related studies that aim to develop a motor-imagery-based brain-computer interface using a single recording session of electroencephalogram (EEG) or electrocorticogram (ECoG) signals for each subject. We apply the same experimental and analytical methods to 11 nonparalysed subjects (eight EEG, three ECoG), and to five paralyzed subjects (four EEG, one ECoG) who had been unable to communicate for some time. While it was relatively easy to obtain classifiable signals quickly from most of the nonparalyzed subjects, it proved impossible to classify the signals obtained from the paralyzed patients by the same methods. This highlights the fact that though certain BCI paradigms may work well with healthy subjects, this does not necessarily indicate success with the target user group. We outline possible reasons for this failure to transfer.

%B IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng %V 14 %P 183-6 %8 06/2006 %G eng %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16792289 %N 2 %R 10.1109/TNSRE.2006.875548 %0 Journal Article %J IEEE Trans Biomed Eng %D 2004 %T The BCI Competition 2003: Progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials. %A Benjamin Blankertz %A Müller, Klaus-Robert %A Curio, Gabriel %A Theresa M Vaughan %A Gerwin Schalk %A Jonathan Wolpaw %A Schlögl, Alois %A Neuper, Christa %A Pfurtscheller, Gert %A Hinterberger, T. %A Schröder, Michael %A Niels Birbaumer %K Adult %K Algorithms %K Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis %K Artificial Intelligence %K Brain %K Cognition %K Databases, Factual %K Electroencephalography %K Evoked Potentials %K Humans %K Reproducibility of Results %K Sensitivity and Specificity %K User-Computer Interface %X Interest 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. %B IEEE Trans Biomed Eng %V 51 %P 1044-51 %8 06/2004 %G eng %N 6 %R 10.1109/TBME.2004.826692 %0 Journal Article %J IEEE Trans Biomed Eng %D 2004 %T BCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system. %A Gerwin Schalk %A Dennis J. McFarland %A Hinterberger, T. %A Niels Birbaumer %A Jonathan Wolpaw %K Algorithms %K Brain %K Cognition %K Communication Aids for Disabled %K Computer Peripherals %K Electroencephalography %K Equipment Design %K Equipment Failure Analysis %K Evoked Potentials %K Humans %K Systems Integration %K User-Computer Interface %X Many laboratories have begun to develop brain-computer interface (BCI) systems that provide communication and control capabilities to people with severe motor disabilities. Further progress and realization of practical applications depends on systematic evaluations and comparisons of different brain signals, recording methods, processing algorithms, output formats, and operating protocols. However, the typical BCI system is designed specifically for one particular BCI method and is, therefore, not suited to the systematic studies that are essential for continued progress. In response to this problem, we have developed a documented general-purpose BCI research and development platform called BCI2000. BCI2000 can incorporate alone or in combination any brain signals, signal processing methods, output devices, and operating protocols. This report is intended to describe to investigators, biomedical engineers, and computer scientists the concepts that the BC12000 system is based upon and gives examples of successful BCI implementations using this system. To date, we have used BCI2000 to create BCI systems for a variety of brain signals, processing methods, and applications. The data show that these systems function well in online operation and that BCI2000 satisfies the stringent real-time requirements of BCI systems. By substantially reducing labor and cost, BCI2000 facilitates the implementation of different BCI systems and other psychophysiological experiments. It is available with full documentation and free of charge for research or educational purposes and is currently being used in a variety of studies by many research groups. %B IEEE Trans Biomed Eng %V 51 %P 1034-43 %8 06/2004 %G eng %N 6 %R 10.1109/TBME.2004.827072 %0 Journal Article %J IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng %D 2000 %T Brain-computer interface technology: a review of the first international meeting. %A Jonathan Wolpaw %A Niels Birbaumer %A Heetderks, W J %A Dennis J. McFarland %A Peckham, P H %A Gerwin Schalk %A Emanuel Donchin %A Quatrano, L A %A Robinson, C J %A Theresa M Vaughan %K Algorithms %K Cerebral Cortex %K Communication Aids for Disabled %K Disabled Persons %K Electroencephalography %K Evoked Potentials %K Humans %K Neuromuscular Diseases %K Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted %K User-Computer Interface %X

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.

%B IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng %V 8 %P 164-73 %8 06/2000 %G eng %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10896178 %N 2 %R 10.1109/TRE.2000.847807