Design-development of an at-home modular brain-computer interface (BCI) platform in a case study of cervical spinal cord injury

Kevin C Davis, Benyamin Meschede-Krasa, Iahn Cajigas, Noeline W Prins, Charles Alver, Sebastian Gallo, Shovan Bhatia, John H Abel, Jasim A Naeem, Letitia Fisher, Fouzia Raza, Wesley R Rifai, Matthew Morrison, Michael E Ivan, Emery N Brown, Jonathan R Jagid, Abhishek Prasad, Kevin C Davis, Benyamin Meschede-Krasa, Iahn Cajigas, Noeline W Prins, Charles Alver, Sebastian Gallo, Shovan Bhatia, John H Abel, Jasim A Naeem, Letitia Fisher, Fouzia Raza, Wesley R Rifai, Matthew Morrison, Michael E Ivan, Emery N Brown, Jonathan R Jagid, Abhishek Prasad

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to develop a portable and modular brain-computer interface (BCI) software platform independent of input and output devices. We implemented this platform in a case study of a subject with cervical spinal cord injury (C5 ASIA A).

Background: BCIs can restore independence for individuals with paralysis by using brain signals to control prosthetics or trigger functional electrical stimulation. Though several studies have successfully implemented this technology in the laboratory and the home, portability, device configuration, and caregiver setup remain challenges that limit deployment to the home environment. Portability is essential for transitioning BCI from the laboratory to the home.

Methods: The BCI platform implementation consisted of an Activa PC + S generator with two subdural four-contact electrodes implanted over the dominant left hand-arm region of the sensorimotor cortex, a minicomputer fixed to the back of the subject's wheelchair, a custom mobile phone application, and a mechanical glove as the end effector. To quantify the performance for this at-home implementation of the BCI, we quantified system setup time at home, chronic (14-month) decoding accuracy, hardware and software profiling, and Bluetooth communication latency between the App and the minicomputer. We created a dataset of motor-imagery labeled signals to train a binary motor imagery classifier on a remote computer for online, at-home use.

Results: Average bluetooth data transmission delay between the minicomputer and mobile App was 23 ± 0.014 ms. The average setup time for the subject's caregiver was 5.6 ± 0.83 min. The average times to acquire and decode neural signals and to send those decoded signals to the end-effector were respectively 404.1 ms and 1.02 ms. The 14-month median accuracy of the trained motor imagery classifier was 87.5 ± 4.71% without retraining.

Conclusions: The study presents the feasibility of an at-home BCI system that subjects can seamlessly operate using a friendly mobile user interface, which does not require daily calibration nor the presence of a technical person for at-home setup. The study also describes the portability of the BCI system and the ability to plug-and-play multiple end effectors, providing the end-user the flexibility to choose the end effector to accomplish specific motor tasks for daily needs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02564419. First posted on 9/30/2015.

Keywords: Neuroscience; Rehabilitation; Signal processing systems.

Conflict of interest statement

JJ reports support from Medtronic Inc, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Medtronic Inc, grants from Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. Outside the submitted work, EB is a cofounder of PASCALL, a company developing closed-loop physiological control systems and a cofounder of Neuradia, a company developing agents to promote recovery of consciousness following general anesthesia or sedation. In addition, EB has a patent SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANALYZING ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL DATA FROM PATIENTS UNDERGOING MEDICAL TREATMENTS. MI reports personal fees from Medtronic—Visualase outside the submitted work.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
System overview. Electrocotricography (ECoG) signals are recorded using two four-contact subdural strips placed on the surface of the sensorimotor cortex. ECoG signals were transmitted by a subcutaneous implant to an external receiver which delivers it to the minicomputer for processing. The decoder classified the signal as a motor imagery command that is then sent over Bluetooth to actuate the mechanical glove
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Remote ECoG Data collection. Results of data collected from the BCI system using the Activa PC + S Nexus device. A, B ECoG data from channels 1 and 3 and filtered through a 1 Hz high-pass filter. C, F Power spectra for channels 1 and 3 (shown as μ±σ). D, E Time–frequency spectrograms of averaged windows (6.4 s, N = 2051) of data that show the changes in power of frequency bands between 1–100 Hz from filtered, averaged, and normalized data during multiple transitions from the REST state (indicated by the first half of the time series) to the MOVE state
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Mobile application overview. The App functioned as the GUI for the subject to interact with the BCI software running on the computer. a The home screen displayed the currently selected input and output devices in use. The blue dot in the upper-right marked the system’s status. b An input device selection screen, allowing the subject to select from more devices. c A settings page that allowed the subject to adjust parameters (such as decoder threshold, end effector motor speed, etc.) for a given device. These settings were defined by the software Class’s Application Programming Interface (API) on the computer’s end and were delivered over Bluetooth for dynamic display. d A data collection session that presented prompts to the subject either for assessing accuracy or applying calibration to the device’s decoder
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Application control flow. a The main application is initialized by a daemon script—or background running process—that ensured the program was always running while the computer was on. The computer application ran multiple coroutines asynchronously to allow for nearly uninterrupted data streaming between input and output devices as well as for Bluetooth communication. b The main application process iteratively made calls to classes that manage input and output devices. These device manager classes contained public methods for obtaining device input and sending commands to output devices. These device classes communicated with their hardware counterpart over serial port communication. Importantly, an array of devices may exist for the subject to use. These could be individually selected via the App over BLE
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Bluetooth low energy communication Benchmark. The time delay observed during a data collection session (n = 750). Bluetooth transmission time delay was measured as the difference between the time at which the display prompted changed on the App and the time the prompt was changed on the computer system to initiate BLE (prompt to display notifying characteristic)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
System profiling. Sunburst diagrams representing the proportions of time spent to process incoming data (left) and send the decoded output to the glove (right). The center of each sunburst diagram represents the process to obtain the decoded neural signal (left), or to send the command to the glove (right). Each arc surrounding the center point represents a subprocess needed to be carried out to process incoming data (left) or send data (right). The length of the arc represents the proportion of time taken for a subprocess to complete relative to subprocesses that depend on it for completion. While there are many subprocesses, those relevant to the BCI software are highlighted. The remaining subprocesses are system sepectific processes such as input–output operations
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Decoder classification. Classification performance of the decoder associated with the Nexus telemeter input device. Month 0 indicates assessment of training data and the subsequent months indicate the number of months since training. The black dotted line indicates the global median of 87.53%
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
System setup time. Elapsed time taken by the subject’s primary caregiver to set up the system. Repeated measurements once a day for several days. A Presents the total time to setup the system, while B presents the times for the different set up steps that sum to the total elapsed time. Calibration time is not included because it was not necessary during datily setups

References

    1. Armour BS, Courtney-Long EA, Fox MH, Fredine H, Cahill A. Prevalence and causes of paralysis-United States, 2013. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(10):1855–1857. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303270.
    1. Gresham GE, Stason WB, Duncan PW. Post-stroke rehabilitation. Collingdale: Diane Publishing; 2004.
    1. Devivo MJ. Epidemiology of traumatic spinal cord injury: trends and future implications. Spinal Cord. 2012;50(5):365–372. doi: 10.1038/sc.2011.178.
    1. National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center. Facts and figures at a Glance. Birmingham: University of Alabama at Birmingham; 2020. p. 1–2. . .
    1. Ajiboye AB, Willett FR, Young DR, Memberg WD, Murphy BA, Miller JP, et al. Restoration of reaching and grasping in a person with tetraplegia through brain-controlled muscle stimulation: a proof-of-concept demonstration. Lancet. 2017;389(10081):1821–1830. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30601-3.
    1. Hochberg LR, Serruya MD, Friehs GM, Mukand JA, Saleh M, Caplan AH, et al. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature. 2006;442(7099):164–171. doi: 10.1038/nature04970.
    1. Hochberg LR, Bacher D, Jarosiewicz B, Masse NY, Simeral JD, Vogel J, et al. Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature. 2012;485(7398):372–375. doi: 10.1038/nature11076.
    1. Collinger JL, Wodlinger B, Downey JE, Wang W, Tyler-Kabara EC, Weber DJ, et al. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet. 2013;381(9866):557–564. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61816-9.
    1. Shih JJ, Krusienski DJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87(3):268–279. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.12.008.
    1. Daly JJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interfaces in neurological rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7(11):1032–1043. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70223-0.
    1. Leuthardt EC, Schalk G, Wolpaw JR, Ojemann JG, Moran DW. A brain-computer interface using electrocorticographic signals in humans. J Neural Eng. 2004;1(2):63–71. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/1/2/001.
    1. Simeral JD, Kim S-P, Black MJ, Donoghue JP, Hochberg LR. Neural control of cursor trajectory and click by a human with tetraplegia 1000 days after implant of an intracortical microelectrode array. J Neural Eng. 2011;8(2):25027. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025027.
    1. Kim S, Black MJ. Point-and-click cursor control with an intracortical neural interface system by humans with tetraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012;19(2):193–203. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2011.2107750.
    1. Gilja V, Pandarinath C, Blabe CH, Nuyujukian P, Simeral JD, Sarma AA, et al. Clinical translation of a high-performance neural prosthesis. Nat Med. 2015;21(10):1142–1145. doi: 10.1038/nm.3953.
    1. Aflalo T, Kellis S, Klaes C, Lee B, Shi Y, Pejsa K, et al. Decoding motor imagery from the posterior parietal cortex of a tetraplegic human. Science. 2015;348(6237):906LP–910. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa5417.
    1. Pandarinath C, Nuyujukian P, Blabe CH, Sorice BL, Saab J, Willett FR, et al. High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain-computer interface. Elife. 2017;6:1–27. doi: 10.7554/eLife.18554.
    1. Kennedy PR, Bakay RAE. Restoration of neural output from a paralyzed patient by a direct brain connection. NeuroReport. 1998;9(8):1707–1711. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199806010-00007.
    1. Oxley TJ, Yoo PE, Rind GS, Ronayne SM, Lee CMS, Bird C, et al. Motor neuroprosthesis implanted with neurointerventional surgery improves capacity for activities of daily living tasks in severe paralysis: First in-human experience. J NeuroInterv Surg. 2021;13:102–108. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016862.
    1. Pels EGM, Aarnoutse EJ, Leinders S, Freudenburg ZV, Branco MP, van der Vijgh BH, et al. Stability of a chronic implanted brain-computer interface in late-stage amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Clin Neurophysiol. 2019;130(10):1798–1803. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2019.07.020.
    1. Kennedy PR, Kirby MT, Moore MM, King B, Mallory A. Computer control using human intracortical local field potentials. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2004;12(3):339–344. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2004.834629.
    1. Patil PG, Carmena JM, Nicolelis MAL, Turner DA. Ensemble recordings of human subcortical neurons as a source of motor control signals for a brain-machine interface. Neurosurgery. 2004;55(1):27–35. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000126872.23715.E5.
    1. Jarosiewicz B, Sarma AA, Bacher D, Masse NY, Simeral JD, Sorice B, et al. Virtual typing by people with tetraplegia using a self-calibrating intracortical brain-computer interface. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(313):1–1. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aac7328.
    1. Wodlinger B, Downey JE, Tyler-Kabara EC, Schwartz AB, Boninger ML, Collinger JL. Ten-dimensional anthropomorphic arm control in a human brain-machine interface: difficulties, solutions, and limitations. J Neural Eng. 2015;12(1):016011. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/12/1/016011.
    1. Benabid AL, Costecalde T, Eliseyev A, Charvet G, Verney A, Karakas S, et al. An exoskeleton controlled by an epidural wireless brain–machine interface in a tetraplegic patient: a proof-of-concept demonstration. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(12):1112–1122. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30321-7.
    1. Chadwick EK, Blana D, Simeral JD, Lambrecht J, Kim SP, Cornwell AS, et al. Continuous neuronal ensemble control of simulated arm reaching by a human with tetraplegia. J Neural Eng. 2011;8(3):034003. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/8/3/034003.
    1. Bouton CE, Shaikhouni A, Annetta NV, Bockbrader MA, Friedenberg DA, Nielson DM, et al. Restoring cortical control of functional movement in a human with quadriplegia. Nature. 2016;533:247–250. doi: 10.1038/nature17435.
    1. Huggins JE, Guger C, Allison B, Anderson CW, Batista A, Brouwer A-M, et al. Workshops of the fifth international brain-computer interface meeting: defining the future. Brain Comput Interfaces (Abingdon, Engl) 2014;1(1):27–49. doi: 10.1080/2326263X.2013.876724.
    1. Miralles F, Vargiu E, Dauwalder S, Solà M, Müller-Putz G, Wriessnegger SC, et al. Brain computer interface on track to home. Sci World J. 2015;2015:623896. doi: 10.1155/2015/623896.
    1. Nurmikko A, Borton D. Wireless neurotechnology for neural prostheses. In: Neurobionics: the biomedical engineering of neural prostheses. Hoboken: Wiley; 2016. p. 123–61. .
    1. Nurmikko A. Challenges for large-scale cortical interfaces. Neuron. 2020;108(2):259–269. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.10.015.
    1. Borton DA, Yin M, Aceros J, Nurmikko A. An implantable wireless neural interface for recording cortical circuit dynamics in moving primates. J Neural Eng. 2013;10(2):026010. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/10/2/026010.
    1. Even-Chen N, Muratore DG, Stavisky SD, Hochberg LR, Henderson JM, Murmann B, et al. Power-saving design opportunities for wireless intracortical brain–computer interfaces. Nat Biomed Eng. 2020;4(10):984–996. doi: 10.1038/s41551-020-0595-9.
    1. Simeral JD, Hosman T, Saab J, Flesher SN, Vilela M, Franco B, et al. Home use of a percutaneous wireless intracortical brain–computer interface by individuals with tetraplegia. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2021;68:2313–2325. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2021.3069119.
    1. Gao Q, Zhao X, Yu X, Song Y, Wang Z. Controlling of smart home system based on brain-computer interface. Technol Health Care. 2018;26(5):769–783. doi: 10.3233/THC-181292.
    1. Sun KT, Hsieh KL, Syu SR. Towards an accessible use of a brain-computer interfaces-based home care system through a smartphone. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2020;2020:16–18. doi: 10.1155/2020/1843269.
    1. Yang D, Nguyen T-H, Chung W-Y. A bipolar-channel hybrid brain-computer interface system for home automation control utilizing steady-state visually evoked potential and eye-blank signals. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 2020;20:5474. doi: 10.3390/s20195474.
    1. Sellers EW, Vaughan TM, Wolpaw JR. A brain-computer interface for long-term independent home use. Amyotroph Lateral Scler. 2010;11(5):449–455. doi: 10.3109/17482961003777470.
    1. Al-Taleb MKH, Purcell M, Fraser M, Petric-Gray N, Vuckovic A. Home used, patient self-managed, brain-computer interface for the management of central neuropathic pain post spinal cord injury: usability study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019;16(1):1–24. doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0588-7.
    1. Barrese JC, Rao N, Paroo K, Triebwasser C, Vargas-Irwin C, Franquemont L, et al. Failure mode analysis of silicon-based intracortical microelectrode arrays in non-human primates. J Neural Eng. 2013;10(6):066014. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/10/6/066014.
    1. Kozai TDY, Jaquins-Gerstl AS, Vazquez AL, Michael AC, Cui XT. Brain tissue responses to neural implants impact signal sensitivity and intervention strategies. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2015;6(1):48–67. doi: 10.1021/cn500256e.
    1. Kozai TDY, Li X, Bodily LM, Caparosa EM, Zenonos GA, Carlisle DL, et al. Effects of caspase-1 knockout on chronic neural recording quality and longevity: insight into cellular and molecular mechanisms of the reactive tissue response. Biomaterials. 2014;35(36):9620–9634. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.08.006.
    1. Szarowski DH, Andersen MD, Retterer S, Spence AJ, Isaacson M, Craighead HG, et al. Brain responses to micro-machined silicon devices. Brain Res. 2003;983(1–2):23–35. doi: 10.1016/S0006-8993(03)03023-3.
    1. Colachis SC, Dunlap CF, Annetta NV, Tamrakar SM, Bockbrader MA, Friedenberg DA. Long-term intracortical microelectrode array performance in a human: a 5 year retrospective analysis. J Neural Eng. 2021;18(4):0460d7. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ac1add.
    1. Chao ZC, Nagasaka Y, Fujii N. Long-term asynchronous decoding of arm motion using electrocorticographic signals in monkeys. Front Neuroeng. 2010;3:3.
    1. Miller KJ, Hermes D, Staff NP. The current state of electrocorticography-based brain–computer interfaces. Neurosurg Focus. 2020;49(1):1–8. doi: 10.3171/2020.4.FOCUS20352.
    1. Silversmith DB, Abiri R, Hardy NF, Natraj N, Tu-Chan A, Chang EF, et al. Plug-and-play control of a brain–computer interface through neural map stabilization. Nat Biotechnol. 2020 doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0662-5.
    1. Vansteensel MJ, Pels EGM, Bleichner MG, Branco MP, Denison T, Freudenburg ZV, et al. Fully implanted brain-computer interface in a locked-in patient with ALS. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(21):2060–2066. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1608085.
    1. Huggins JE, Moinuddin AA, Chiodo AE, Wren PA. What would brain-computer interface users want: opinions and priorities of potential users with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(3):S38–S45.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.05.028.
    1. Cajigas I, Davis KC, Meschede-krasa B, Prins NW, Gallo S, Naeem JA, et al. Implantable brain-computer interface fo neuroprosthetic-enabled volitional hand graps restoration in spinal cord injury: a case report. Brain Commun. 2021;3:fcab248. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcab248.
    1. Harris CR, Millman KJ, van der Walt SJ, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D, et al. Array programming with {NumPy} Nature. 2020;585:357–362. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2.
    1. McKinney W. Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python. In: Walt S van der, Millman J, editors. Proceedings of the 9th python in science conference. 2010. p. 56–61.
    1. Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods. 2020;17:261–272. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2.
    1. Hunter JD. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput Sci Eng. 2007;9(3):90–95. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55.
    1. Perez F, Granger BE. IPython: a system for interactive scientific computing. Comput Sci Eng. 2007;9(3):21–29. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53.
    1. Wang Y, Member S, Wang Y, Cheng C, Jung T, Member S. Developing Stimulus presentation on mobile devices for a truly portable SSVEP-based BCI. IEEE. 2013.
    1. Campbell A, Choudhury T, Hu S, Lu H, Mukerjee MK, Rabbi M, et al. NeuroPhone: brain-mobile phone interface using a wireless EEG headset. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCOMM workshop on networking, systems, and applications on mobile handhelds, MobiHeld ’10, Co-located with SIGCOMM 2010. 2010;3–8.
    1. Blum S, Debener S, Emkes R, Volkening N, Fudickar S, Bleichner MG. EEG recording and online signal processing on android: a multiapp framework for brain-computer interfaces on smartphone. BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017:3072870. doi: 10.1155/2017/3072870.
    1. Wang YT, Wang Y, Jung TP. A cell-phone-based brain-computer interface for communication in daily life. J Neural Eng. 2011;8(2):025018. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025018.
    1. Li Q, Ding D, Conti M. Brain-computer interface applications: security and privacy challenges. In: 2015 IEEE Conference on communications and networksecurity, CNS 2015. 2015;(SPiCy):663–6.
    1. Schalk G, Mcfarland DJ, Hinterberger T, Birbaumer N, Wolpaw JR. BCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2004;51(6):1034–1043.
    1. Perego P, Maggi L, Parini S, Andreoni G. BCI++: a new framework for brain computer interface application. In: SEDE. Citeseer; 2009. p. 37–41.
    1. Renard Y, Lotte F, Gibert G, Congedo M, Maby E, Delannoy V, et al. OpenViBE: an open-source software platform to design, test, and use brain-computer interfaces in real and virtual environments. Presence. 2010;19(1):35–53. doi: 10.1162/pres.19.1.35.
    1. Muller-Putz G, Breitwieser C, Cincotti F, Leeb R, Schreuder M, Leotta F, et al. Tools for brain-computer interaction: a general concept for a hybrid BCI. Front Neuroinform. 2011; 5:30. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2011.00030.
    1. Kothe CA, Makeig S. BCILAB: a platform for brain-computer interface development. J Neural Eng. 2013;10(5):56014. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/10/5/056014.
    1. Brunner C, Andreoni G, Bianchi L, Blankertz B, Breitwieser C, Kanoh S, et al. BCI software platforms BT—towards practical brain-computer interfaces: bridging the gap from research to real-world applications. In: Allison BZ, Dunne S, Leeb R, Del R. Millán J, Nijholt A, editors. Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 303–31. 10.1007/978-3-642-29746-5_16.
    1. Zickler C, Riccio A, Leotta F, Hillian-Tress S, Halder S, Holz E, et al. A brain-computer interface as input channel for a standard assistive technology software. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2011;42(4):236–244. doi: 10.1177/155005941104200409.
    1. Teplan M. Fundamentals of EEG measurement. Vol. 2. 2002.
    1. Zulauf-Czaja A, Al-Taleb MKH, Purcell M, Petric-Gray N, Cloughley J, Vuckovic A. On the way home: a BCI-FES hand therapy self-managed by sub-acute SCI participants and their caregivers: a usability study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021;18(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00838-y.
    1. Romanelli P, Piangerelli M, Ratel D, Gaude C, Costecalde T, Puttilli C, et al. A novel neural prosthesis providing long-term electrocorticography recording and cortical stimulation for epilepsy and brain-computer interface. J Neurosurg. 2019;130(4):1166–1179.
    1. Kohler F, Gkogkidis CA, Bentler C, Wang X, Gierthmuehlen M, Fischer J, et al. Closed-loop interaction with the cerebral cortex: a review of wireless implant technology. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2017;4(3):146–154. doi: 10.1080/2326263X.2017.1338011.
    1. Pfurtscheller G, Aranibar A. Evaluation of event-related desynchronization (ERD) preceding and following voluntary self-paced movement. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1979;46(2):138–146. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(79)90063-4.
    1. Pfurtscheller G. EEG event-related desynchronization (ERD) and synchronization (ERS) Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997;103(1):26. doi: 10.1016/S0013-4694(97)88021-6.
    1. Huang D, Qian K, Fei D, Jia W, Chen X, Bai O. Electroencephalography (EEG)-based brain-computer interface (BCI): A 2-D virtual wheelchair control based on event-related desynchronization/synchronization and state control. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012;20(3):379–388. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2190299.
    1. Lee K, Liu D, Perroud L, Chavarriaga R, Millán JdR. A brain-controlled exoskeleton with cascaded event-related desynchronization classifiers. Robot Auton Syst. 2017;90:15–23. doi: 10.1016/j.robot.2016.10.005.
    1. Leeb R, Perdikis S, Tonin L, Biasiucci A, Tavella M, Creatura M, et al. Transferring brain–computer interfaces beyond the laboratory: successful application control for motor-disabled users. Artif Intell Med. 2013;59(2):121–132. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2013.08.004.
    1. Bundy DT, Souders L, Baranyai K, Leonard L, Schalk G, Coker R, et al. Contralesional brain-computer interface control of a powered exoskeleton for motor recovery in chronic stroke survivors. Stroke. 2017;48(7):1908–1915. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016304.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel