<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Benjamin Blankertz</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Müller, Klaus-Robert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Curio, Gabriel</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Theresa M Vaughan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gerwin Schalk</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jonathan Wolpaw</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Schlögl, Alois</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Neuper, Christa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pfurtscheller, Gert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hinterberger, Thilo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Schröder, Michael</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Niels Birbaumer</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The BCI Competition 2003: progress and perspectives in detection and discrimination of EEG single trials.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">augmentative communication</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BCI</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">beta-rhythm</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">brain-computer interface</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EEG</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ERP</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">imagined hand movements</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">lateralized readiness potential</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">mu-rhythm</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">P300</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rehabilitation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">single-trial classification</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">slow cortical potentials</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">06/2004</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15188876</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">51</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1044–1051</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Interest 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.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fabiani, Georg E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dennis J. McFarland</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jonathan Wolpaw</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pfurtscheller, Gert</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Conversion of EEG activity into cursor movement by a brain-computer interface (BCI).</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">augmentative communication</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain-computer interface (BCI)</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Electroencephalography</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Feedback</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">09/2004</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15473195</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">331–338</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Wadsworth electroencephalogram (EEG)-based brain-computer interface (BCI) uses amplitude in mu or beta frequency bands over sensorimotor cortex to control cursor movement. Trained users can move the cursor in one or two dimensions. The primary goal of this research is to provide a new communication and control option for people with severe motor disabilities. Currently, cursor movements in each dimension are determined 10 times/s by an empirically derived linear function of one or two EEG features (i.e., spectral bands from different electrode locations). This study used offline analysis of data collected during system operation to explore methods for improving the accuracy of cursor movement. The data were gathered while users selected among three possible targets by controlling vertical [i.e., one-dimensional (1-D)] cursor movement. The three methods analyzed differ in the dimensionality of the cursor movement [1-D versus two-dimensional (2-D)] and in the type of the underlying function (linear versus nonlinear). We addressed two questions: Which method is best for classification (i.e., to determine from the EEG which target the user wants to hit)? How does the number of EEG features affect the performance of each method? All methods reached their optimal performance with 10-20 features. In offline simulation, the 2-D linear method and the 1-D nonlinear method improved performance significantly over the 1-D linear method. The 1-D linear method did not do so. These offline results suggest that the 1-D nonlinear or the 2-D linear cursor function will improve online operation of the BCI system.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dennis J. McFarland</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sarnacki, William A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jonathan Wolpaw</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain-computer interface (BCI) operation: optimizing information transfer rates.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Biological psychology</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">augmentative communication</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Electroencephalography</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">information</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Learning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">mu rhythm</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">operant conditioning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prosthesis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rehabilitation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">sensorimotor cortex</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">07/2003</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12853169</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">63</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">237–251</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">People can learn to control mu (8-12 Hz) or beta (18-25 Hz) rhythm amplitude in the EEG recorded over sensorimotor cortex and use it to move a cursor to a target on a video screen. In the present version of the cursor movement task, vertical cursor movement is a linear function of mu or beta rhythm amplitude. At the same time the cursor moves horizontally from left to right at a fixed rate. A target occupies 50% (2-target task) to 20% (5-target task) of the right edge of the screen. The user's task is to move the cursor vertically so that it hits the target when it reaches the right edge. The goal of the present study was to optimize system performance. To accomplish this, we evaluated the impact on system performance of number of targets (i.e. 2-5) and trial duration (i.e. horizontal movement time from 1 to 4 s). Performance was measured as accuracy (percent of targets selected correctly) and also as bit rate (bits/min) (which incorporates, in addition to accuracy, speed and the number of possible targets). Accuracy declined as target number increased. At the same time, for six of eight users, four targets yielded the maximum bit rate. Accuracy increased as movement time increased. At the same time, the movement time with the highest bit rate varied across users from 2 to 4 s. These results indicate that task parameters such as target number and trial duration can markedly affect system performance. They also indicate that optimal parameter values vary across users. Selection of parameters suited both to the specific user and the requirements of the specific application is likely to be a key factor in maximizing the success of EEG-based communication and control.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Theresa M Vaughan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heetderks, William J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Trejo, Leonard J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rymer, William Z.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weinrich, Michael</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Moore, Melody M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kübler, Andrea</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dobkin, Bruce H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Niels Birbaumer</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Emanuel Donchin</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wolpaw, Elizabeth Winter</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jonathan Wolpaw</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain-computer interface technology: a review of the Second International Meeting.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">augmentative communication</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain-computer interface (BCI)</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">electroencephalography (EEG)</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rehabilitation</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">06/2003</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12899247</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">94–109</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This paper summarizes the Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control, The Second International Meeting, held in Rensselaerville, NY, in June 2002. Sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and organized by the Wadsworth Center of the New York State Department of Health, the meeting addressed current work and future plans in brain-computer interface (BCI) research. Ninety-two researchers representing 38 different research groups from the United States, Canada, Europe, and China participated. The BCIs discussed at the meeting use electroencephalographic activity recorded from the scalp or single-neuron activity recorded within cortex to control cursor movement, select letters or icons, or operate neuroprostheses. The central element in each BCI is a translation algorithm that converts electrophysiological input from the user into output that controls external devices. BCI operation depends on effective interaction between two adaptive controllers, the user who encodes his or her commands in the electrophysiological input provided to the BCI, and the BCI that recognizes the commands contained in the input and expresses them in device control. Current BCIs have maximum information transfer rates of up to 25 b/min. Achievement of greater speed and accuracy requires improvements in signal acquisition and processing, in translation algorithms, and in user training. These improvements depend on interdisciplinary cooperation among neuroscientists, engineers, computer programmers, psychologists, and rehabilitation specialists, and on adoption and widespread application of objective criteria for evaluating alternative methods. The practical use of BCI technology will be determined by the development of appropriate applications and identification of appropriate user groups, and will require careful attention to the needs and desires of individual users.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sheikh, Hesham</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dennis J. McFarland</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sarnacki, William A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jonathan Wolpaw</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Electroencephalographic(EEG)-based communication: EEG control versus system performance in humans.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Neuroscience letters</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">augmentative communication</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">brain-computer interface</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">brain-machine interface</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Electroencephalography</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">mu and beta rhythms</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neuroprosthesis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rehabilitation</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">07/2002</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12821178</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">345</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">89–92</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">People can learn to control electroencephalographic (EEG) sensorimotor rhythm amplitude so as to move a cursor to select among choices on a computer screen. We explored the dependence of system performance on EEG control. Users moved the cursor to reach a target at one of four possible locations. EEG control was measured as the correlation (r(2)) between rhythm amplitude and target location. Performance was measured as accuracy (% of targets hit) and as information transfer rate (bits/trial). The relationship between EEG control and accuracy can be approximated by a linear function that is constant for all users. The results facilitate offline predictions of the effects on performance of using different EEG features or combinations of features to control cursor movement.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jonathan Wolpaw</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Niels Birbaumer</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heetderks, W. J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dennis J. McFarland</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peckham, P. H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gerwin Schalk</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Emanuel Donchin</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quatrano, L. A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Robinson, C. J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Theresa M Vaughan</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain-computer interface technology: a review of the first international meeting.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">augmentative communication</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain-computer interface (BCI)</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">electroencephalography (EEG)</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">06/2000</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10896178</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">164–173</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Over the past decade, many laboratories have begun to explore brain-computer interface (BCI) technology as a radically new communication option for those with neuromuscular impairments that prevent them from using conventional augmentative communication methods. BCI's provide these users with communication channels that do not depend on peripheral nerves and muscles. This article summarizes the first international meeting devoted to BCI research and development. Current BCI's use electroencephalographic (EEG) activity recorded at the scalp or single-unit activity recorded from within cortex to control cursor movement, select letters or icons, or operate a neuroprosthesis. The central element in each BCI is a translation algorithm that converts electrophysiological input from the user into output that controls external devices. BCI operation depends on effective interaction between two adaptive controllers, the user who encodes his or her commands in the electrophysiological input provided to the BCI, and the BCI which recognizes the commands contained in the input and expresses them in device control. Current BCI's have maximum information transfer rates of 5-25 b/min. Achievement of greater speed and accuracy depends on improvements in signal processing, translation algorithms, and user training. These improvements depend on increased interdisciplinary cooperation between neuroscientists, engineers, computer programmers, psychologists, and rehabilitation specialists, and on adoption and widespread application of objective methods for evaluating alternative methods. The practical use of BCI technology depends on the development of appropriate applications, identification of appropriate user groups, and careful attention to the needs and desires of individual users. BCI research and development will also benefit from greater emphasis on peer-reviewed publications, and from adoption of standard venues for presentations and discussion.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gerwin Schalk</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jonathan Wolpaw</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dennis J. McFarland</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pfurtscheller, G.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EEG-based communication: presence of an error potential.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">augmentative communication</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">brain-computer interface</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Electroencephalography</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">error potential</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">error related negativity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">event related potential</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">mu rhythm</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rehabilitation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">sensorimotor cortex</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12/2000</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11090763</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">111</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2138–2144</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EEG-based communication could be a valuable new augmentative communication technology for those with severe motor disabilities. Like all communication methods, it faces the problem of errors in transmission. In the Wadsworth EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI) system, subjects learn to use mu or beta rhythm amplitude to move a cursor to targets on a computer screen. While cursor movement is highly accurate in trained subjects, it is not perfect.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Theresa M Vaughan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Miner, L. A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dennis J. McFarland</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jonathan Wolpaw</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EEG-based communication: analysis of concurrent EMG activity.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">augmentative communication</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">conditioning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Electroencephalography</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Electromyography</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">mu rhythm</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rehabilitation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">sensorimotor cortex</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1998</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12/1998</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9922089</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">107</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">428–433</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE:
Recent studies indicate that people can learn to control the amplitude of mu or beta rhythms in the EEG recorded from the scalp over sensorimotor cortex and can use that control to move a cursor to targets on the computer screen. While subjects do not move during performance, it is possible that inapparent or unconscious muscle contractions contribute to the changes in the mu and beta rhythm activity responsible for cursor movement. We evaluated this possibility.
METHODS:
EMG was recorded from 10 distal limb muscle groups while five trained subjects used mu or beta rhythms to move a cursor to targets at the bottom or top edge of a computer screen.
RESULTS:
EMG activity was very low during performance, averaging 4.0+/-4.4% (SD) of maximum voluntary contraction. Most important, the correlation, measured as r2, between target position and EMG activity averaged only 0.01+/-0.02, much lower than the correlation between target position and the EEG activity that controlled cursor movement, which averaged 0.39+/-0.18.
CONCLUSIONS:
These results strongly support the conclusion that EEG-based cursor control does no depend on concurrent muscle activity. EEG-based communication and control might provide a new augmentative communication option for those with severe motor disabilities.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>