Cited by 80EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Towards a user-friendly brain-computer interface: initial tests in ALS and PLS patients

Open access
Bai, Ou, Lin, Peter, Huang, Dandan, Fei, Ding-Yu, Floeter, Mary Kay·2010·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

Objective Patients usually require long-term training for effective EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI) control due to fatigue caused by the demands for focused attention during prolonged BCI operation. We intended to develop a user-friendly BCI requiring minimal training and less mental load.Methods Testing of BCI performance was investigated in three patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and three patients with primary lateral sclerosis (PLS), who had no previous BCI experience. All patients performed binary control of cursor movement. One ALS patient and one PLS patient performed four-directional cursor control in a two-dimensional domain under a BCI paradigm associated with human natural motor behavior using motor execution and motor imagery. Subjects practiced for 5-10min and then participated in a multi-session study of either binary control or four-directional control including online BCI game over 1.5-2h in a single visit.Results Event-related desynchronization and event-related synchronization in the beta band were observed in all patients during the production of voluntary movement either by motor execution or motor imagery. The online binary control of cursor movement was achieved with an average accuracy about 82.1+/-8.2% with motor execution and about 80% with motor imagery, whereas offline accuracy was achieved with 91.4+/-3.4% with motor execution and 83.3+/-8.9% with motor imagery after optimization. In addition, four-directional cursor control was achieved with an accuracy of 50-60% with motor execution and motor imagery.Conclusion Patients with ALS or PLS may achieve BCI control without extended training, and fatigue might be reduced during operation of a BCI associated with human natural motor behavior.Significance The development of a user-friendly BCI will promote practical BCI applications in paralyzed patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.02.157

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mutual learning has been claimed mostly on the grounds of adequate and improved BCI classification accuracy or application performances.

    “Indeed, mutual learning has been claimed mostly on the grounds of adequate and improved BCI classification accuracy [25,27,30–35] or application performances [36,37].”
  • Evidence that co-adaptive MI BCIs might also be able to promote and increase the ability of users to voluntarily modulate their brain signals (subject learning) is scarce, most often indirect and rather inconclusive.

    “Evidence that co-adaptive MI BCIs might also be able to promote and increase the ability of the users to voluntary modulate their brain signals (subject learning) is, in fact, scarce, most often indirect and rather inconclusive.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bai, O., Lin, P., Huang, D., Fei, D.-Y., & Floeter, M. K.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Bai, Ou
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-08
Volume
121
Issue
8
Pages
1293-1303
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2119206024
Cited by
80
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (ZIANS002976)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
brain-computer interface, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, primary lateral sclerosis, motor execution, motor imagery, beta band, event-related desynchronization, event-related synchronization, cursor control, fatigue reduction, paralysis
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Brain, Brain Mapping, Electroencephalography, Electromyography, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Movement, Psychomotor Performance, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, User-Computer Interface

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review