Literature DB >> 21184352

Brain-computer interface research comes of age: traditional assumptions meet emerging realities.

Jonathan R Wolpaw1.   

Abstract

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) could provide important new communication and control options for people with severe motor disabilities. Most BCI research to date has been based on 4 assumptions that: (a) intended actions are fully represented in the cerebral cortex; (b) neuronal action potentials can provide the best picture of an intended action; (c) the best BCI is one that records action potentials and decodes them; and (d) ongoing mutual adaptation by the BCI user and the BCI system is not very important. In reality, none of these assumptions is presently defensible. Intended actions are the products of many areas, from the cortex to the spinal cord, and the contributions of each area change continually as the CNS adapts to optimize performance. BCIs must track and guide these adaptations if they are to achieve and maintain good performance. Furthermore, it is not yet clear which category of brain signals will prove most effective for BCI applications. In human studies to date, low-resolution electroencephalography-based BCIs perform as well as high-resolution cortical neuron-based BCIs. In sum, BCIs allow their users to develop new skills in which the users control brain signals rather than muscles. Thus, the central task of BCI research is to determine which brain signals users can best control, to maximize that control, and to translate it accurately and reliably into actions that accomplish the users' intentions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21184352     DOI: 10.1080/00222895.2010.526471

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mot Behav        ISSN: 0022-2895            Impact factor:   1.328


  10 in total

Review 1.  Brain-computer interfaces in medicine.

Authors:  Jerry J Shih; Dean J Krusienski; Jonathan R Wolpaw
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 2.  Dissociating motor cortex from the motor.

Authors:  Marc H Schieber
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 5.182

Review 3.  Improving N1 classification by grouping EEG trials with phases of pre-stimulus EEG oscillations.

Authors:  Li Han; Zhang Liang; Zhang Jiacai; Wang Changming; Yao Li; Wu Xia; Guo Xiaojuan
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2014-11-19       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Experimental Set Up of P300 Based Brain Computer Interface Using a Bioamplifier and BCI2000 System for Patients with Spinal Cord Injury.

Authors:  Hyeongseok Jeon; Dong Ah Shin
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2015-09-30

5.  Rapid acquisition of novel interface control by small ensembles of arbitrarily selected primary motor cortex neurons.

Authors:  Andrew J Law; Gil Rivlis; Marc H Schieber
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 6.  Neuroplasticity subserving the operation of brain-machine interfaces.

Authors:  Karim G Oweiss; Islam S Badreldin
Journal:  Neurobiol Dis       Date:  2015-05-09       Impact factor: 5.996

Review 7.  Past, Present, and Future of EEG-Based BCI Applications.

Authors:  Kaido Värbu; Naveed Muhammad; Yar Muhammad
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 3.847

8.  Robotics to enable older adults to remain living at home.

Authors:  Alan J Pearce; Brooke Adair; Kimberly Miller; Elizabeth Ozanne; Catherine Said; Nick Santamaria; Meg E Morris
Journal:  J Aging Res       Date:  2012-12-04

9.  On the usage of linear regression models to reconstruct limb kinematics from low frequency EEG signals.

Authors:  Javier M Antelis; Luis Montesano; Ander Ramos-Murguialday; Niels Birbaumer; Javier Minguez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Advancing brain-machine interfaces: moving beyond linear state space models.

Authors:  Adam G Rouse; Marc H Schieber
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2015-07-28
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.