Literature DB >> 20943945

A closed-loop human simulator for investigating the role of feedback control in brain-machine interfaces.

John P Cunningham1, Paul Nuyujukian, Vikash Gilja, Cindy A Chestek, Stephen I Ryu, Krishna V Shenoy.   

Abstract

Neural prosthetic systems seek to improve the lives of severely disabled people by decoding neural activity into useful behavioral commands. These systems and their decoding algorithms are typically developed "offline," using neural activity previously gathered from a healthy animal, and the decoded movement is then compared with the true movement that accompanied the recorded neural activity. However, this offline design and testing may neglect important features of a real prosthesis, most notably the critical role of feedback control, which enables the user to adjust neural activity while using the prosthesis. We hypothesize that understanding and optimally designing high-performance decoders require an experimental platform where humans are in closed-loop with the various candidate decode systems and algorithms. It remains unexplored the extent to which the subject can, for a particular decode system, algorithm, or parameter, engage feedback and other strategies to improve decode performance. Closed-loop testing may suggest different choices than offline analyses. Here we ask if a healthy human subject, using a closed-loop neural prosthesis driven by synthetic neural activity, can inform system design. We use this online prosthesis simulator (OPS) to optimize "online" decode performance based on a key parameter of a current state-of-the-art decode algorithm, the bin width of a Kalman filter. First, we show that offline and online analyses indeed suggest different parameter choices. Previous literature and our offline analyses agree that neural activity should be analyzed in bins of 100- to 300-ms width. OPS analysis, which incorporates feedback control, suggests that much shorter bin widths (25-50 ms) yield higher decode performance. Second, we confirm this surprising finding using a closed-loop rhesus monkey prosthetic system. These findings illustrate the type of discovery made possible by the OPS, and so we hypothesize that this novel testing approach will help in the design of prosthetic systems that will translate well to human patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20943945      PMCID: PMC3075301          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00503.2010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  67 in total

1.  Recursive bayesian decoding of motor cortical signals by particle filtering.

Authors:  A E Brockwell; A L Rojas; R E Kass
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Neural variability in premotor cortex provides a signature of motor preparation.

Authors:  Mark M Churchland; Byron M Yu; Stephen I Ryu; Gopal Santhanam; Krishna V Shenoy
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-04-05       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 3.  Brain-machine interfaces: past, present and future.

Authors:  Mikhail A Lebedev; Miguel A L Nicolelis
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2006-07-21       Impact factor: 13.837

4.  An extensible infrastructure for fully automated spike sorting during online experiments.

Authors:  Gopal Santhanam; Maneesh Sahani; Stephen Ryu; Krishna Shenoy
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2004

5.  Mixture of trajectory models for neural decoding of goal-directed movements.

Authors:  Byron M Yu; Caleb Kemere; Gopal Santhanam; Afsheen Afshar; Stephen I Ryu; Teresa H Meng; Maneesh Sahani; Krishna V Shenoy
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-02-28       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Spike train decoding without spike sorting.

Authors:  Valérie Ventura
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.026

7.  Dominance of vision over proprioception on motor programming: evidence from ERP.

Authors:  Pascale Touzalin-Chretien; Solange Ehrler; André Dufour
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2009-12-21       Impact factor: 5.357

8.  A high-performance brain-computer interface.

Authors:  Gopal Santhanam; Stephen I Ryu; Byron M Yu; Afsheen Afshar; Krishna V Shenoy
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2006-07-13       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Instant neural control of a movement signal.

Authors:  Mijail D Serruya; Nicholas G Hatsopoulos; Liam Paninski; Matthew R Fellows; John P Donoghue
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-03-14       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Neural control of computer cursor velocity by decoding motor cortical spiking activity in humans with tetraplegia.

Authors:  Sung-Phil Kim; John D Simeral; Leigh R Hochberg; John P Donoghue; Michael J Black
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2008-11-18       Impact factor: 5.379

View more
  59 in total

1.  Decoding three-dimensional reaching movements using electrocorticographic signals in humans.

Authors:  David T Bundy; Mrinal Pahwa; Nicholas Szrama; Eric C Leuthardt
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 5.379

2.  The impact of command signal power distribution, processing delays, and speed scaling on neurally-controlled devices.

Authors:  A R Marathe; D M Taylor
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 5.379

3.  A high performing brain-machine interface driven by low-frequency local field potentials alone and together with spikes.

Authors:  Sergey D Stavisky; Jonathan C Kao; Paul Nuyujukian; Stephen I Ryu; Krishna V Shenoy
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 5.379

4.  Single-unit activity, threshold crossings, and local field potentials in motor cortex differentially encode reach kinematics.

Authors:  Sagi Perel; Patrick T Sadtler; Emily R Oby; Stephen I Ryu; Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara; Aaron P Batista; Steven M Chase
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain-computer interface.

Authors:  Chethan Pandarinath; Paul Nuyujukian; Christine H Blabe; Brittany L Sorice; Jad Saab; Francis R Willett; Leigh R Hochberg; Krishna V Shenoy; Jaimie M Henderson
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 8.140

6.  A recurrent neural network for closed-loop intracortical brain-machine interface decoders.

Authors:  David Sussillo; Paul Nuyujukian; Joline M Fan; Jonathan C Kao; Sergey D Stavisky; Stephen Ryu; Krishna Shenoy
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2012-03-19       Impact factor: 5.379

7.  Neural control of finger movement via intracortical brain-machine interface.

Authors:  Z T Irwin; K E Schroeder; P P Vu; A J Bullard; D M Tat; C S Nu; A Vaskov; S R Nason; D E Thompson; J N Bentley; P G Patil; C A Chestek
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 5.379

8.  Improving brain-machine interface performance by decoding intended future movements.

Authors:  Francis R Willett; Aaron J Suminski; Andrew H Fagg; Nicholas G Hatsopoulos
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 5.379

9.  Intention estimation in brain-machine interfaces.

Authors:  Joline M Fan; Paul Nuyujukian; Jonathan C Kao; Cynthia A Chestek; Stephen I Ryu; Krishna V Shenoy
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 5.379

10.  Power-saving design opportunities for wireless intracortical brain-computer interfaces.

Authors:  Nir Even-Chen; Dante G Muratore; Sergey D Stavisky; Leigh R Hochberg; Jaimie M Henderson; Boris Murmann; Krishna V Shenoy
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 25.671

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.