@article {2203, title = {Current Trends in Hardware and Software for Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs).}, journal = {J Neural Eng}, volume = {8}, year = {2011}, month = {04/2011}, pages = {025001}, abstract = {

A\ brain-computer interface\ (BCI) provides a non-muscular communication channel to people with and without disabilities.\ BCI\ devices consist of hardware and software.\ BCI\ hardware records signals from the\ brain, either invasively or non-invasively, using a series of device components.\ BCI\ software then translates these signals into device output commands and provides feedback. One may categorize different types of\ BCI\ applications into the following four categories: basic\ research, clinical/translational\ research, consumer products, and emerging applications. These four categories use\ BCI\ hardware and software, but have different sets of requirements. For example, while basic\ research\ needs to explore a wide range of system configurations, and thus requires a wide range of hardware and software capabilities, applications in the other three categories may be designed for relatively narrow purposes and thus may only need a very limited subset of capabilities. This paper summarizes technical aspects for each of these four categories of\ BCI\ applications. The results indicate that\ BCI\ technology is in transition from isolated demonstrations to systematic\ research\ and commercial\ development. This process requires several multidisciplinary efforts, including the\ development\ of better integrated and more robust\ BCI\ hardware and software, the definition of standardized\ interfaces, and the\ developmentof certification, dissemination and reimbursement procedures.

}, keywords = {Biofeedback, Psychology, Brain, Brain Mapping, Electroencephalography, Equipment Design, Equipment Failure Analysis, Humans, Man-Machine Systems, Software, User-Computer Interface}, issn = {1741-2552}, doi = {10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025001}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21436536}, author = {Peter Brunner and Bianchi, L and Guger, C and Cincotti, F and Gerwin Schalk} } @article {2208, title = {Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Advances in Electrocorticography.}, journal = {Epilepsy Behav}, volume = {22}, year = {2011}, month = {12/2011}, pages = {641-50}, abstract = {

The Second International Workshop on Advances in Electrocorticography (ECoG) was convened in San Diego, CA, USA, on November 11-12, 2010. Between this meeting and the inaugural 2009 event, a much clearer picture has been emerging of cortical ECoG physiology and its relationship to local field potentials and single-cell recordings. Innovations in material engineering are advancing the goal of a stable long-term recording interface. Continued evolution of ECoG-driven brain-computer interface technology is determining innovation in neuroprosthetics. Improvements in instrumentation and statistical methodologies continue to elucidate ECoG correlates of normal human function as well as the ictal state. This proceedings document summarizes the current status of this rapidly evolving field.

}, keywords = {Brain, Brain Mapping, Brain Waves, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Electroencephalography, Epilepsy, Humans, United States, User-Computer Interface}, issn = {1525-5069}, doi = {10.1016/j.yebeh.2011.09.028}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22036287}, author = {A L Ritaccio and Boatman-Reich, Dana and Peter Brunner and Cervenka, Mackenzie C and Cole, Andrew J and Nathan E. Crone and Duckrow, Robert and Korzeniewska, Anna and Litt, Brian and Miller, John W and Moran, D and Parvizi, Josef and Viventi, Jonathan and Williams, Justin C and Gerwin Schalk} } @article {2205, title = {Toward a gaze-independent matrix speller brain-computer interface.}, journal = {Clin Neurophysiol}, volume = {122}, year = {2011}, month = {06/2011}, pages = {1063-4}, keywords = {Attention, Brain, Fixation, Ocular, Humans, User-Computer Interface}, issn = {1872-8952}, doi = {10.1016/j.clinph.2010.11.014}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21183404}, author = {Peter Brunner and Gerwin Schalk} } @article {2200, title = {Does the {\textquoteright}P300{\textquoteright} speller depend on eye gaze?.}, journal = {J Neural Eng}, volume = {7}, year = {2010}, month = {10/2010}, pages = {056013}, abstract = {

Many people affected by debilitating neuromuscular disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, brainstem stroke or spinal cord injury are impaired in their ability to, or are even unable to, communicate. A brain-computer interface (BCI) uses brain signals, rather than muscles, to re-establish communication with the outside world. One particular BCI approach is the so-called {\textquoteright}P300 matrix speller{\textquoteright} that was first described by Farwell and Donchin (1988 Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 70 510-23). It has been widely assumed that this method does not depend on the ability to focus on the desired character, because it was thought that it relies primarily on the P300-evoked potential and minimally, if at all, on other EEG features such as the visual-evoked potential (VEP). This issue is highly relevant for the clinical application of this BCI method, because eye movements may be impaired or lost in the relevant user population. This study investigated the extent to which the performance in a {\textquoteright}P300{\textquoteright} speller BCI depends on eye gaze. We evaluated the performance of 17 healthy subjects using a {\textquoteright}P300{\textquoteright} matrix speller under two conditions. Under one condition ({\textquoteright}letter{\textquoteright}), the subjects focused their eye gaze on the intended letter, while under the second condition ({\textquoteright}center{\textquoteright}), the subjects focused their eye gaze on a fixation cross that was located in the center of the matrix. The results show that the performance of the {\textquoteright}P300{\textquoteright} matrix speller in normal subjects depends in considerable measure on gaze direction. They thereby disprove a widespread assumption in BCI research, and suggest that this BCI might function more effectively for people who retain some eye-movement control. The applicability of these findings to people with severe neuromuscular disabilities (particularly in eye-movements) remains to be determined.

}, keywords = {Adult, Event-Related Potentials, P300, Eye Movements, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Photic Stimulation, User-Computer Interface, Young Adult}, issn = {1741-2552}, doi = {10.1088/1741-2560/7/5/056013}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20858924}, author = {Peter Brunner and Joshi, S and S Briskin and Jonathan Wolpaw and H Bischof and Gerwin Schalk} } @article {2183, title = {Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs): Detection Instead of Classification.}, journal = {J Neurosci Methods}, volume = {167}, year = {2008}, month = {01/2008}, pages = {51-62}, abstract = {

Many studies over the past two decades have shown that people can use\ brain\ signals to convey their intent to a\ computer\ through\ brain-computer interfaces\ (BCIs). These devices operate by recording signals from the\ brain\ and translating these signals into device commands. They can be used by people who are severely paralyzed to communicate without any use of muscle activity. One of the major impediments in translating this novel technology into\ clinical\ applications is the current requirement for preliminary analyses to identify the\ brain\ signal features best suited for communication. This paper introduces and validates signal detection, which does not require such analysis procedures, as a new concept in BCI signal processing. This detection concept is realized with Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) that are used to model resting\ brain\ activity so that any change in\ relevantbrain\ signals can be detected. It is implemented in a package called SIGFRIED (SIGnal modeling For Real-time Identification and Event Detection). The results indicate that SIGFRIED produces results that are within the range of those achieved using a common analysis strategy that requires preliminary identification of signal features. They indicate that such laborious analysis procedures could be replaced by merely recording\ brain\ signals during rest. In summary, this paper demonstrates how SIGFRIED could be used to overcome one of the present impediments to translation of laboratory BCI demonstrations into clinically practical applications.

}, keywords = {Adult, Algorithms, Brain, Brain Mapping, Electrocardiography, Electroencephalography, Humans, Male, Man-Machine Systems, Normal Distribution, Online Systems, Signal Detection, Psychological, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Software Validation, User-Computer Interface}, issn = {0165-0270}, doi = {10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.08.010}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17920134}, author = {Gerwin Schalk and Peter Brunner and Lester A Gerhardt and H Bischof and Jonathan Wolpaw} }