OBJECTIVE: Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology aims to provide individuals with paralysis a means to restore function. Electrocorticography (ECoG) uses disc electrodes placed on either the surface of the dura or the cortex to record field potential activity. ECoG has been proposed as a viable neural recording modality for BCI systems, potentially providing stable, long-term recordings of cortical activity with high spatial and temporal resolution. Previously we have demonstrated that a subject with spinal cord injury (SCI) could control an ECoG-based BCI system with up to three degrees of freedom (Wang et al 2013 PLoS One). Here, we expand upon these findings by including brain-control results from two additional subjects with upper-limb paralysis due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and brachial plexus injury, and investigate the potential of motor and somatosensory cortical areas to enable BCI control. APPROACH: Individuals were implanted with high-density ECoG electrode grids over sensorimotor cortical areas for less than 30 d. Subjects were trained to control a BCI by employing a somatotopic control strategy where high-gamma activity from attempted arm and hand movements drove the velocity of a cursor. MAIN RESULTS: Participants were capable of generating robust cortical modulation that was differentiable across attempted arm and hand movements of their paralyzed limb. Furthermore, all subjects were capable of voluntarily modulating this activity to control movement of a computer cursor with up to three degrees of freedom using the somatotopic control strategy. Additionally, for those subjects with electrode coverage of somatosensory cortex, we found that somatosensory cortex was capable of supporting ECoG-based BCI control. SIGNIFICANCE: These results demonstrate the feasibility of ECoG-based BCI systems for individuals with paralysis as well as highlight some of the key challenges that must be overcome before such systems are translated to the clinical realm. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01393444.
OBJECTIVE: Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology aims to provide individuals with paralysis a means to restore function. Electrocorticography (ECoG) uses disc electrodes placed on either the surface of the dura or the cortex to record field potential activity. ECoG has been proposed as a viable neural recording modality for BCI systems, potentially providing stable, long-term recordings of cortical activity with high spatial and temporal resolution. Previously we have demonstrated that a subject with spinal cord injury (SCI) could control an ECoG-based BCI system with up to three degrees of freedom (Wang et al 2013 PLoS One). Here, we expand upon these findings by including brain-control results from two additional subjects with upper-limb paralysis due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and brachial plexus injury, and investigate the potential of motor and somatosensory cortical areas to enable BCI control. APPROACH: Individuals were implanted with high-density ECoG electrode grids over sensorimotor cortical areas for less than 30 d. Subjects were trained to control a BCI by employing a somatotopic control strategy where high-gamma activity from attempted arm and hand movements drove the velocity of a cursor. MAIN RESULTS:Participants were capable of generating robust cortical modulation that was differentiable across attempted arm and hand movements of their paralyzed limb. Furthermore, all subjects were capable of voluntarily modulating this activity to control movement of a computer cursor with up to three degrees of freedom using the somatotopic control strategy. Additionally, for those subjects with electrode coverage of somatosensory cortex, we found that somatosensory cortex was capable of supporting ECoG-based BCI control. SIGNIFICANCE: These results demonstrate the feasibility of ECoG-based BCI systems for individuals with paralysis as well as highlight some of the key challenges that must be overcome before such systems are translated to the clinical realm. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01393444.
Authors: J A Turner; J S Lee; O Martinez; A L Medlin; S L Schandler; M J Cohen Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Esther Verstraete; Martijn P van den Heuvel; Jan H Veldink; Niels Blanken; René C Mandl; Hilleke E Hulshoff Pol; Leonard H van den Berg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-10-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: P J Wrigley; S M Gustin; P M Macey; P G Nash; S C Gandevia; V G Macefield; P J Siddall; L A Henderson Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Jonathan Viventi; Dae-Hyeong Kim; Leif Vigeland; Eric S Frechette; Justin A Blanco; Yun-Soung Kim; Andrew E Avrin; Vineet R Tiruvadi; Suk-Won Hwang; Ann C Vanleer; Drausin F Wulsin; Kathryn Davis; Casey E Gelber; Larry Palmer; Jan Van der Spiegel; Jian Wu; Jianliang Xiao; Yonggang Huang; Diego Contreras; John A Rogers; Brian Litt Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2011-11-13 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Jennifer L Collinger; Ramana Vinjamuri; Alan D Degenhart; Douglas J Weber; Gustavo P Sudre; Michael L Boninger; Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara; Wei Wang Journal: Front Integr Neurosci Date: 2014-02-19
Authors: Daniel B Silversmith; Reza Abiri; Nicholas F Hardy; Nikhilesh Natraj; Adelyn Tu-Chan; Edward F Chang; Karunesh Ganguly Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Virginia Woods; Michael Trumpis; Brinnae Bent; Kay Palopoli-Trojani; Chia-Han Chiang; Charles Wang; Chunxiu Yu; Michele N Insanally; Robert C Froemke; Jonathan Viventi Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Alan D Degenhart; William E Bishop; Emily R Oby; Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara; Steven M Chase; Aaron P Batista; Byron M Yu Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Maxime Verwoert; Mariska J Vansteensel; Zachary V Freudenburg; Erik J Aarnoutse; Frans S S Leijten; Nick F Ramsey; Mariana P Branco Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 5.043