<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nijboer, Femke</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adrian Furdea</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gunst, Ingo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mellinger, Jürgen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dennis J. McFarland</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Niels Birbaumer</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kübler, Andrea</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">An auditory brain-computer interface (BCI).</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of neuroscience methods</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">auditory feedback</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">brain-computer interface</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EEG</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">locked-in state</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">motivation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">sensorimotor rhythm</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">01/2008</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17399797</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">167</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">43–50</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) translate brain activity into signals controlling external devices. BCIs based on visual stimuli can maintain communication in severely paralyzed patients, but only if intact vision is available. Debilitating neurological disorders however, may lead to loss of intact vision. The current study explores the feasibility of an auditory BCI. Sixteen healthy volunteers participated in three training sessions consisting of 30 2-3 min runs in which they learned to increase or decrease the amplitude of sensorimotor rhythms (SMR) of the EEG. Half of the participants were presented with visual and half with auditory feedback. Mood and motivation were assessed prior to each session. Although BCI performance in the visual feedback group was superior to the auditory feedback group there was no difference in performance at the end of the third session. Participants in the auditory feedback group learned slower, but four out of eight reached an accuracy of over 70% correct in the last session comparable to the visual feedback group. Decreasing performance of some participants in the visual feedback group is related to mood and motivation. We conclude that with sufficient training time an auditory BCI may be as efficient as a visual BCI. Mood and motivation play a role in learning to use a BCI.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hinterberger, T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nijboer, F</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kübler, A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Matuz, T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adrian Furdea</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mochty, Ursula</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jordan, M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lal, T.N</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jeremy Jeremy Hill</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mellinger, Jürgen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bensch, M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tangermann, Michael</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Widmann, G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elger, Christian</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rosenstiel, W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Schölkopf, B</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Niels Birbaumer</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain Computer Interfaces for Communication in Paralysis: a Clinical-Experimental Approach.</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">brain-computer interfaces</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EEG</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">experiment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Medical sciences Medicine</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">paralyzed patients</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">slow cortical potentials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Thought-Translation Device</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2008/2154/</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Virtual Library of Psychology at Saarland University and State Library, GERMANY, PsyDok [http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/phpoai/oai2.php] (Germany)</style></publisher><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9780262256049</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color: #333333; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 24px;&quot;&gt;An overview of different approaches to brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) developed in our laboratory is given. An important clinical application of BCIs is to enable communication or environmental control in severely paralyzed patients. The BCI “Thought-Translation Device (TTD)” allows verbal communication through the voluntary self-regulation of brain signals (e.g., slow cortical potentials (SCPs)), which is achieved by operant feedback training. Humans' ability to self-regulate their SCPs is used to move a cursor toward a target that contains a selectable letter set. Two different approaches were followed to developWeb browsers that could be controlled with binary brain responses. Implementing more powerful classification methods including different signal parameters such as oscillatory features improved our BCI considerably. It was also tested on signals with implanted electrodes. Most BCIs provide the user with a visual feedback interface. Visually impaired patients require an auditory feedback mode. A procedure using auditory (sonified) feedback of multiple EEG parameters was evaluated. Properties of the auditory systems are reported and the results of two experiments with auditory feedback are presented. Clinical data of eight ALS patients demonstrated that all patients were able to acquire efficient brain control of one of the three available BCI systems (SCP, µ-rhythm, and P300), most of them used the SCP-BCI. A controlled comparison of the three systems in a group of ALS patients, however, showed that P300-BCI and the µ-BCI are faster and more easily acquired than SCP-BCI, at least in patients with some rudimentary motor control left. Six patients who started BCI training after entering the completely locked-in state did not achieve reliable communication skills with any BCI system. One completely locked-in patient was able t o communicate shortly with a ph-meter, but lost control afterward.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>