02771nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245014300055210006900198260001200267300000800279490000600287520196800293653002202261653003202283653001502315653002102330653001802351100001702369700002402386700002102410700001902431700001902450856004802469       2014                        eng d  a1662-516100aECoG high gamma activity reveals distinct cortical representations of lyrics passages, harmonic and timbre-related changes in a rock song.0 aECoG high gamma activity reveals distinct cortical representatio  c10/2014  a7980 v83 a<p>Listening to music moves our minds and moods, stirring interest in its neural underpinnings. A multitude of compositional features drives the appeal of natural music. How such original music, where a composer's opus is not manipulated for experimental purposes, engages a listener's brain has not been studied until recently. Here, we report an in-depth analysis of two electrocorticographic (ECoG) data sets obtained over the left hemisphere in ten patients during presentation of either a rock song or a read-out narrative. First, the time courses of five acoustic features (intensity, presence/absence of vocals with lyrics, spectral centroid, harmonic change, and pulse clarity) were extracted from the audio tracks and found to be correlated with each other to varying degrees. In a second step, we uncovered the specific impact of each musical feature on ECoG high-gamma power (70-170 Hz) by calculating partial correlations to remove the influence of the other four features. In the music condition, the onset and offset of vocal lyrics in ongoing instrumental music was consistently identified within the group as the dominant driver for ECoG high-gamma power changes over temporal auditory areas, while concurrently subject-individual activation spots were identified for sound intensity, timbral, and harmonic features. The distinct cortical activations to vocal speech-related content embedded in instrumental music directly demonstrate that song integrated in instrumental music represents a distinct dimension in complex music. In contrast, in the speech condition, the full sound envelope was reflected in the high gamma response rather than the onset or offset of the vocal lyrics. This demonstrates how the contributions of stimulus features that modulate the brain response differ across the two examples of a full-length natural stimulus, which suggests a context-dependent feature selection in the processing of complex auditory stimuli.</p>10aacoustic features10aelectrocorticography (ECoG)10ahigh gamma10amusic processing10anatural music1 aSturm, Irene1 aBlankertz, Benjamin1 aPotes, Cristhian1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aCurio, Gabriel  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2535279901990nas a2200361   4500008004100000020002200041245002800063210002700091260003500118520105300153100002101206700001601227700001501243700002401258700001901282700001301301700001501314700001501329700001401344700001701358700001401375700001401389700001901403700001601422700001501438700002201453700002501475700001301500700001201513700002201525700001501547856006601562       2013                        eng d  a978-3-642-29745-800aBCI Software Platforms.0 aBCI Software Platforms  bBiological and Medical Physics3 aIn this chapter, we provide an overview of publicly available software platforms for brain–computer interfaces. We have identified seven major BCI platforms and one platform specifically targeted towards feedback and stimulus presentation. We describe the intended target user group (which includes researchers, programmers, and end users), the most important features of each platform such as availability on different operating systems, licences, programming languages involved, supported devices, and so on. These seven platforms are: (1) BCI2000, (2) OpenViBE, (3) TOBI Common Implementation Platform (CIP), (4) BCILAB, (5) BCI++, (6) xBCI, and (7) BF++. The feedback framework is called Pyff. Our conclusion discusses possible synergies and future developments, such as combining different components of different platforms. With this overview, we hope to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each available platform, which should help anyone in the BCI research field in their decision which platform to use for their specific purposes.1 aBrunner, Clemens1 aAndreoni, G1 aBianchi, L1 aBlankertz, Benjamin1 aBreitwieser, C1 aKanoh, S1 aKothe, C A1 aLecuyer, A1 aMakeig, S1 aMellinger, J1 aPerego, P1 aRenard, Y1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aSusila, I P1 aVenthur, B1 aMueller-Putz, G R1 aAllison, Brendan, Z.1 aDunne, S1 aLeeb, R1 aDel R. Millán, J1 aNijholt, A  uhttp://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-29746-5_1601769nas a2200373   4500008004100000245003800041210003700079260001200116300000900128490000600137520083700143653000800980653002900988653001601017100001801033700001601051700001501067700002101082700002101103700002101124700001201145700001501157700001601172700002001188700001301208700002101221700001501242700001901257700001601276700001601292700001501308700002401323856004801347       2012                        eng d00aReview of the BCI Competition IV.0 aReview of the BCI Competition IV  c07/2012  a1-310 v63 aThe BCI competition IV stands in the tradition of prior BCI competitions that aim to provide high quality neuroscientific data for open access to the scientific community. As experienced already in prior competitions not only scientists from the narrow field of BCI compete, but scholars with a broad variety of backgrounds and nationalities. They include high specialists as well as students. The goals of all BCI competitions have always been to challenge with respect to novel paradigms and complex data. We report on the following challenges: (1) asynchronous data, (2) synthetic, (3) multi-class continuous data, (4) session-to-session transfer, (5) directionally modulated MEG, (6) finger movements recorded by ECoG. As after past competitions, our hope is that winning entries may enhance the analysis methods of future BCIs.10aBCI10abrain-computer interface10acompetition1 aTangermann, M1 aMuller, K R1 aAertsen, A1 aBirbaumer, Niels1 aBraun, Christoph1 aBrunner, Clemens1 aLeeb, R1 aMehring, C1 aMiller, K J1 aMueller-Putz, G1 aNolte, G1 aPfurtscheller, G1 aPreissl, H1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aSchlögl, A1 aVidaurre, C1 aWaldert, S1 aBlankertz, Benjamin  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2281165703802nas a2200385   4500008004100000022001400041245008700055210006900142260001200211300001000223490000700233520264300240653001502883653001002898653003602908653002302944653002702967653002202994653001103016653002703027653002403054653003803078653002803116100002403144700002603168700002403194700001903218700002103237700002003258700002403278700002203302700002303324700002103347856004803368       2006                        eng d  a1534-432000aThe BCI competition III: Validating alternative approaches to actual BCI problems.0 aBCI competition III Validating alternative approaches to actual   c06/2006  a153-90 v143 a<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">A&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">brain-computer interface</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;(BCI) is a system that allows its users to control external devices with&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">brain</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">activity. Although the proof-of-concept was given decades ago, the reliable translation of user intent into device control commands is still a major challenge. Success requires the effective interaction of two adaptive controllers: the user's&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">brain</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">, which produces&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">brain</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;activity that encodes intent, and the BCI system, which translates that activity into device control commands. In order to facilitate this interaction, many laboratories are exploring a variety of signal analysis techniques to improve the adaptation of the BCI system to the user. In the literature, many machine learning and pattern classification algorithms have been reported to give impressive results when applied to BCI data in offline analyses. However, it is more difficult to evaluate their relative value for actual&nbsp;</span><span class="highlight" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">online</span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">&nbsp;use. BCI data competitions have been organized to provide objective formal evaluations of alternative methods. Prompted by the great interest in the first two BCI Competitions, we organized the third BCI Competition to address several of the most difficult and important analysis problems in BCI research. The paper describes the data sets that were provided to the competitors and gives an overview of the results.</span></p>10aAlgorithms10aBrain10aCommunication Aids for Disabled10aDatabases, Factual10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials10aHumans10aNeuromuscular Diseases10aSoftware Validation10aTechnology Assessment, Biomedical10aUser-Computer Interface1 aBlankertz, Benjamin1 aMüller, Klaus-Robert1 aKrusienski, Dean, J1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aSchlögl, Alois1 aPfurtscheller, Gert1 aMillán, José, R1 aSchröder, Michael1 aBirbaumer, Niels  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1679228202685nas a2200433   4500008004100000022001400041245011000055210006900165260001200234300001600246490000700262520140200269653003101671653000801702653001601710653002901726653000801755653000801763653002801771653003601799653001401835653000901849653001901858653003201877653002901909100002401938700002601962700001901988700002402007700001902031700002102050700002002071700002002091700002402111700002402135700002302159700002102182856004802203       2004                        eng d  a0018-929400aThe BCI Competition 2003: progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials.0 aBCI Competition 2003 progress and perspectives in detection and   c06/2004  a1044–10510 v513 aInterest in developing a new method of man-to-machine communication–a brain-computer interface (BCI)–has grown steadily over the past few decades. BCIs create a new communication channel between the brain and an output device by bypassing conventional motor output pathways of nerves and muscles. These systems use signals recorded from the scalp, the surface of the cortex, or from inside the brain to enable users to control a variety of applications including simple word-processing software and orthotics. BCI technology could therefore provide a new communication and control option for individuals who cannot otherwise express their wishes to the outside world. Signal processing and classification methods are essential tools in the development of improved BCI technology. We organized the BCI Competition 2003 to evaluate the current state of the art of these tools. Four laboratories well versed in EEG-based BCI research provided six data sets in a documented format. We made these data sets (i.e., labeled training sets and unlabeled test sets) and their descriptions available on the Internet. The goal in the competition was to maximize the performance measure for the test labels. Researchers worldwide tested their algorithms and competed for the best classification results. This paper describes the six data sets and the results and function of the most successful algorithms.10aaugmentative communication10aBCI10abeta-rhythm10abrain-computer interface10aEEG10aERP10aimagined hand movements10alateralized readiness potential10amu-rhythm10aP30010aRehabilitation10asingle-trial classification10aslow cortical potentials1 aBlankertz, Benjamin1 aMüller, Klaus-Robert1 aCurio, Gabriel1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aSchlögl, Alois1 aNeuper, Christa1 aPfurtscheller, Gert1 aHinterberger, Thilo1 aSchröder, Michael1 aBirbaumer, Niels  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1518887602756nas a2200433   4500008004100000022001400041245011000055210006900165260001200234300001200246490000700258520140000265653001001665653001501675653003401690653002801724653001001752653001401762653002301776653002701799653002201826653001101848653003101859653003201890653002801922100002401950700002601974700001902000700002402019700001902043700002102062700002002083700002002103700002402123700002002147700002302167700002102190856011102211       2004                        eng d  a0018-929400aThe BCI Competition 2003: Progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials.0 aBCI Competition 2003 Progress and perspectives in detection and   c06/2004  a1044-510 v513 aInterest in developing a new method of man-to-machine communication--a brain-computer interface (BCI)--has grown steadily over the past few decades. BCIs create a new communication channel between the brain and an output device by bypassing conventional motor output pathways of nerves and muscles. These systems use signals recorded from the scalp, the surface of the cortex, or from inside the brain to enable users to control a variety of applications including simple word-processing software and orthotics. BCI technology could therefore provide a new communication and control option for individuals who cannot otherwise express their wishes to the outside world. Signal processing and classification methods are essential tools in the development of improved BCI technology. We organized the BCI Competition 2003 to evaluate the current state of the art of these tools. Four laboratories well versed in EEG-based BCI research provided six data sets in a documented format. We made these data sets (i.e., labeled training sets and unlabeled test sets) and their descriptions available on the Internet. The goal in the competition was to maximize the performance measure for the test labels. Researchers worldwide tested their algorithms and competed for the best classification results. This paper describes the six data sets and the results and function of the most successful algorithms.10aAdult10aAlgorithms10aAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis10aArtificial Intelligence10aBrain10aCognition10aDatabases, Factual10aElectroencephalography10aEvoked Potentials10aHumans10aReproducibility of Results10aSensitivity and Specificity10aUser-Computer Interface1 aBlankertz, Benjamin1 aMüller, Klaus-Robert1 aCurio, Gabriel1 aVaughan, Theresa, M1 aSchalk, Gerwin1 aWolpaw, Jonathan1 aSchlögl, Alois1 aNeuper, Christa1 aPfurtscheller, Gert1 aHinterberger, T1 aSchröder, Michael1 aBirbaumer, Niels  uhttps://neurotechcenter.org/publications/2004/bci-competition-2003-progress-and-perspectives-detection-and