| Literature DB >> 33784612 |
John D Simeral, Thomas Hosman, Jad Saab, Sharlene N Flesher, Marco Vilela, Brian Franco, Jessica N Kelemen, David M Brandman, John G Ciancibello, Paymon G Rezaii, Emad N Eskandar, David M Rosler, Krishna V Shenoy, Jaimie M Henderson, Arto V Nurmikko, Leigh R Hochberg.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals with neurological disease or injury such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, spinal cord injury or stroke may become tetraplegic, unable to speak or even locked-in. For people with these conditions, current assistive technologies are often ineffective. Brain-computer interfaces are being developed to enhance independence and restore communication in the absence of physical movement. Over the past decade, individuals with tetraplegia have achieved rapid on-screen typing and point-and-click control of tablet apps using intracortical brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs) that decode intended arm and hand movements from neural signals recorded by implanted microelectrode arrays. However, cables used to convey neural signals from the brain tether participants to amplifiers and decoding computers and require expert oversight, severely limiting when and where iBCIs could be available for use. Here, we demonstrate the first human use of a wireless broadband iBCI.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33784612 PMCID: PMC8218873 DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2021.3069119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng ISSN: 0018-9294 Impact factor: 4.538
Fig. 1.Components of the cabled and wireless systems for dual-array recording. Pathways for neural signal acquisition differed as shown, but NSPs and all downstream file recording, signal processing and decoding hardware and software were the same for both systems. Ant.: antenna; f.o.: fiber optic.
Fig. 2.Some components of the wireless system, (a) BWD transmitter (52 mm x 44 mm) showing battery compartment. Turn-screw disc is used to attach the device onto a percutaneous pedestal, (b) The BWD connected to T10’s posterior pedestal (here, the anterior pedestal is covered by a protective cap), (c) A two-frequency wireless receiver system in a four-antenna configuration as deployed for T10. The output optical fibers (orange) connect to downstream NSPs. (d) T5 in his home with two transmitters. The antenna in the background was one of four mounted around the room. Photos used with permission.
Fig. 3.Metrics comparing closed-loop cursor control in wired (light blue) and wireless (dark blue) configurations. (a) Median target acquisition rates in wired and wireless conditions. Circles indicate the measure for each iteration of the Grid Task across two sessions for each participant (white and black used for contrast). (b) Bitrates in wired and wireless conditions (one measure for each Grid Task across two sessions for each participant). (c) Three metrics of cursor control over two days for each participant. Each point shows the metric computed for an individual trial (one target acquisition). Points are spread on each X-axis to reveal individual trials. Histograms on the right of each plot summarize wired and wireless performance. ‘x’ indicates an angle error exceeding 90 degrees. ‘*’ indicates significant difference (P<0.05).
Fig. 4.Spectral content of T10 neural data recorded continuously over 24 hours with the wireless system (posterior pedestal). X-axis indicates wall-clock time. Dark vertical bars reflect periods where data was not recorded (e.g., transmitters removed) or was severely disrupted (high frame loss). Peaks in the spectral power are noted on the right at 10.6 Hz and 19.6 Hz.
Events associated with disrupted wireless signals over 24 hours
| Total Minutes | Activity |
|---|---|
| 100 | Caregivers attending T10 (rotate in bed, suction) |
| 25 | Bathing, dressing (transmitters removed) |
| 15 | Unexplained signal noise during sleep |
| 15 | Technical errors in real-time file storage system |
| 10 | Battery changes |
| 10 | File breaks before/after cursor sessions |
Fig. 5.Comparison of wired and wireless recordings of simulated neural signals, (a) Waveforms of three different spiking neurons aligned from bandpass-filtered wired and wireless recordings, (b) Distribution of baseline noise in the spike-filtered data (250 Hz – 7.5 kHz) across all 96 channels. Noise was measured as RMS power of the residual signal after all spike events were removed. Triangles indicate median noise values, (c) Distribution of noise values in the field potential range (5 Hz – 250 Hz) computed for each channel after removing the 96-channel mean signal recorded in the wired condition.
Fig. 6.Human intracortical signals recorded in wired and wireless configurations in the home, (a) Comparison of recorded neural activity on one electrode (t10 trial day 361, e24 blocks 6, 7). Top: the “raw” unfiltered neural signal. Middle: low-pass filtered (100 Hz cutoff). Bottom: band pass filtered for spike extraction (250 Hz — 7.5 kHz). (b) Distribution of residual RMS amplitudes from all electrodes on one array after band-pass filtering and removing thresholded spikes for wired (light blue) and wireless (dark blue) recordings, (c) Sample waveforms from two units sorted from the same electrode shown in (a) and (b). Light blue (wired) and dark blue (wireless) waveforms show substantial similarity.
Incidence of wireless data packet drops during Grid Tasks for anterior (Ant) and posterior (Pos) data streams.
| ID | # Task Blocks | Total Time (Min) | # Blocks with Dropped Packets | Dropped Packets (% of All Data) | # of Blocks with SES | Total SES Time (sec) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ant | Pos | Ant | Pos | Ant | Pos | Ant | Pos | |||
| T5 | 24 | 47.9 | 8 | 24 | 0.003 | 0.416 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 10 |
| T10 | 6 | 10.3 | 6 | 0 | 1.004 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |