Minimally invasive brain computer interface for fast typing

Li, Dongyang; Hao, Han; Xu, Xin; Ling, Zhipei; Hong, Bo

doi:10.1109/ner.2017.8008393

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These systems record electric field potentials from cortical populations within the brain parenchyma itself which includes cortex or deeper brain structures. Similar to ECoG, they access a broad frequency spectrum of dynamical brain activity and can be both output and input BCIs (Wang et al, 2010 ; Vadera et al, 2013 ; Li et al, 2017 ). Current and near-term applications of LFP BCI systems are clinical and research oriented.…”

Section: Defining a Brain Computer Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface Technologies

Leuthardt

Moran

Mullen³

2021

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the emergence of numerous brain computer interfaces (BCI), their form factors, and clinical applications the terminology to describe their clinical deployment and the associated risk has been vague. The terms “minimally invasive” or “non-invasive” have been commonly used, but the risk can vary widely based on the form factor and anatomic location. Thus, taken together, there needs to be a terminology that best accommodates the surgical footprint of a BCI and their attendant risks. This work presents a semantic framework that describes the BCI from a procedural standpoint and its attendant clinical risk profile. We propose extending the common invasive/non-invasive distinction for BCI systems to accommodate three categories in which the BCI anatomically interfaces with the patient and whether or not a surgical procedure is required for deployment: (1) Non-invasive—BCI components do not penetrate the body, (2) Embedded—components are penetrative, but not deeper than the inner table of the skull, and (3) Intracranial –components are located within the inner table of the skull and possibly within the brain volume. Each class has a separate risk profile that should be considered when being applied to a given clinical population. Optimally, balancing this risk profile with clinical need provides the most ethical deployment of these emerging classes of devices. As BCIs gain larger adoption, and terminology becomes standardized, having an improved, more precise language will better serve clinicians, patients, and consumers in discussing these technologies, particularly within the context of surgical procedures.

show abstract

Section: Defining a Brain Computer Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface Technologies

Leuthardt

Moran

Mullen³

2021

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, the same group showed that similar performance could also be achieved using electrodes that were located in the lateral ventricle (Shih and Krusienski, 2012). By employing a motion-onset VEP (Kuba et al, 2007) and sEEG electrodes in middle temporal regions, Li et al (2017a) showed that up to 14 characters per minute could be typed.…”

Section: Visual Speller Bcimentioning

confidence: 87%

The Potential of Stereotactic-EEG for Brain-Computer Interfaces: Current Progress and Future Directions

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stereotactic electroencephalogaphy (sEEG) utilizes localized, penetrating depth electrodes to measure electrophysiological brain activity. It is most commonly used in the identification of epileptogenic zones in cases of refractory epilepsy. The implanted electrodes generally provide a sparse sampling of a unique set of brain regions including deeper brain structures such as hippocampus, amygdala and insula that cannot be captured by superficial measurement modalities such as electrocorticography (ECoG). Despite the overlapping clinical application and recent progress in decoding of ECoG for Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs), sEEG has thus far received comparatively little attention for BCI decoding. Additionally, the success of the related deep-brain stimulation (DBS) implants bodes well for the potential for chronic sEEG applications. This article provides an overview of sEEG technology, BCI-related research, and prospective future directions of sEEG for long-term BCI applications.

show abstract

“…In another study, grasp force related events were recorded and classified using SEEG electrodes recording from sulcal areas in motor cortex and from sensory cortex (Murphy et al 2016 ). Also, in a different study, three different hand gestures were decoded using SEEG signals with an accuracy of 78.70 ± 4.01% (Li et al 2017a , 2017b ). In a separate effort, SEEG electrodes placed in middle temporal regions led to typing of up to 14 characters/minute (Li et al 2017a , 2017b ).…”

Section: Introduction – Historical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, in a different study, three different hand gestures were decoded using SEEG signals with an accuracy of 78.70 ± 4.01% (Li et al 2017a , 2017b ). In a separate effort, SEEG electrodes placed in middle temporal regions led to typing of up to 14 characters/minute (Li et al 2017a , 2017b ). Furthermore, another group decoded SEEG recordings from the auditory cortex and produced intelligible waveforms with 45–75% accuracy levels depending on the algorithm used (Akbari et al 2019 ).…”

Section: Introduction – Historical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Historical perspectives, challenges, and future directions of implantable brain-computer interfaces for sensorimotor applications

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Almost 100 years ago experiments involving electrically stimulating and recording from the brain and the body launched new discoveries and debates on how electricity, movement, and thoughts are related. Decades later the development of brain-computer interface technology began, which now targets a wide range of applications. Potential uses include augmentative communication for locked-in patients and restoring sensorimotor function in those who are battling disease or have suffered traumatic injury. Technical and surgical challenges still surround the development of brain-computer technology, however, before it can be widely deployed. In this review we explore these challenges, historical perspectives, and the remarkable achievements of clinical study participants who have bravely forged new paths for future beneficiaries.

show abstract

Minimally invasive brain computer interface for fast typing

Cited by 13 publications

References 14 publications

Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface Technologies

Defining Surgical Terminology and Risk for Brain Computer Interface Technologies

The Potential of Stereotactic-EEG for Brain-Computer Interfaces: Current Progress and Future Directions

Historical perspectives, challenges, and future directions of implantable brain-computer interfaces for sensorimotor applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About