The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
High-resolution EEG techniques for brain-computer interface applications
Open accessAbstract
High-resolution electroencephalographic (HREEG) techniques allow estimation of cortical activity based on non-invasive scalp potential measurements, using appropriate models of volume conduction and of neuroelectrical sources. In this study we propose an application of this body of technologies, originally developed to obtain functional images of the brain's electrical activity, in the context of brain-computer interfaces (BCI). Our working hypothesis predicted that, since HREEG pre-processing removes spatial correlation introduced by current conduction in the head structures, by providing the BCI with waveforms that are mostly due to the unmixed activity of a small cortical region, a more reliable classification would be obtained, at least when the activity to detect has a limited generator, which is the case in motor related tasks. HREEG techniques employed in this study rely on (i) individual head models derived from anatomical magnetic resonance images, (ii) distributed source model, composed of a layer of current dipoles, geometrically constrained to the cortical mantle, (iii) depth-weighted minimum L(2)-norm constraint and Tikhonov regularization for linear inverse problem solution and (iv) estimation of electrical activity in cortical regions of interest corresponding to relevant Brodmann areas. Six subjects were trained to learn self modulation of sensorimotor EEG rhythms, related to the imagination of limb movements. Off-line EEG data was used to estimate waveforms of cortical activity (cortical current density, CCD) on selected regions of interest. CCD waveforms were fed into the BCI computational pipeline as an alternative to raw EEG signals; spectral features are evaluated through statistical tests (r(2) analysis), to quantify their reliability for BCI control. These results are compared, within subjects, to analogous results obtained without HREEG techniques. The processing procedure was designed in such a way that computations could be split into a setup phase (which includes most of the computational burden) and the actual EEG processing phase, which was limited to a single matrix multiplication. This separation allowed to make the procedure suitable for on-line utilization, and a pilot experiment was performed. Results show that lateralization of electrical activity, which is expected to be contralateral to the imagined movement, is more evident on the estimated CCDs than in the scalp potentials. CCDs produce a pattern of relevant spectral features that is more spatially focused, and has a higher statistical significance (EEG: 0.20+/-0.114 S.D.; CCD: 0.55+/-0.16 S.D.; p=10(-5)). A pilot experiment showed that a trained subject could utilize voluntary modulation of estimated CCDs for accurate (eight targets) on-line control of a cursor. This study showed that it is practically feasible to utilize HREEG techniques for on-line operation of a BCI system; off-line analysis suggests that accuracy of BCI control is enhanced by the proposed method.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Similar to these previous works, we found that, in general, source features were more correlated with cued motor-related mental states than sensor features (Fig. S9) (44, 45).”
From Noninvasive neuroimaging enhances continuous neural tracking for robotic device control (2019) · cites this paper as [44]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control
Wolpaw, J. R., Birbaumer, N., McFarland, D. J., Pfurtscheller, G., & Vaughan, T. M. (2002) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00057-3 · Cited by 7,927
Analysis of Discrete Ill-Posed Problems by Means of the L-Curve
Hansen, P. C. (1992) · SIAM Review · doi:10.1137/1034115 · Cited by 3,903
BCI2000: A General-Purpose Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) System
Schalk, G., McFarland, D. J., Hinterberger, T., Birbaumer, N., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2004.827072 · Cited by 3,129
Dale, A. M., & Sereno, M. I. (1993) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1993.5.2.162 · Cited by 2,003
Dynamic Statistical Parametric Mapping
Dale, A. M., Liu, A. K., Fischl, B. R., Buckner, R. L., Belliveau, J. W., Lewine, J. D., & Halgren, E. (2000) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(00)81138-1 · Cited by 1,787
Michel, C., Murray, M. M., Lantz, G., Gonzalez, S., Spinelli, L., & de Peralta, R. G. (2004) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2004.06.001 · Cited by 1,771
Control of a two-dimensional movement signal by a noninvasive brain-computer interface in humans
Wolpaw, J. R., & McFarland, D. J. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0403504101 · Cited by 1,512
Picard, N., & Strick, P. L. (2001) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(01)00266-5 · Cited by 1,184
An EEG-based brain-computer interface for cursor control
Wolpaw, J. R., McFarland, D. J., Neat, G. W., & Forneris, C. A. (1991) · Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/0013-4694(91)90040-b · Cited by 1,117
Neocortical Dynamics and Human EEG Rhythms
Nunez, P. L., & Williamson, S. J. (1996) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.2807585 · Cited by 1,005
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- He, 2006, EEG inverse problems, vol. 2, 1355
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brain–computer interface boosts motor imagery practice during stroke recovery
Pichiorri, F., Morone, G., Petti, M., Toppi, J., Pisotta, I., Molinari, M., Paolucci, S., Inghilleri, M., Astolfi, L., Cincotti, F., et al. (2015) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.24390 · Cited by 695
Brain-Machine Interfaces: From Basic Science to Neuroprostheses and Neurorehabilitation
Lebedev, M., & Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2017) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00027.2016 · Cited by 695
Brain–Computer Interfaces Using Sensorimotor Rhythms: Current State and Future Perspectives
Yuan, H., & He, B. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2014.2312397 · Cited by 508
Noninvasive Electroencephalogram Based Control of a Robotic Arm for Reach and Grasp Tasks
Meng, J., Zhang, S., Bekyo, A., Olsoe, J., Baxter, B., & He, B. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep38565 · Cited by 484
EEG source imaging enhances the decoding of complex right-hand motor imagery tasks
Edelman, B. J., Baxter, B., & He, B. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2015.2467312 · Cited by 370
Metadata
- Authors
- Cincotti, F., Mattia, D., Aloise, F., Bufalari, S., Astolfi, L., De Vico Fallani, F., Tocci, A., Bianchi, L., Marciani, M. G., Gao, S., Millan, J., & Babiloni, F.
- Affiliations
- Fondazione Santa Lucia (IT)
- University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Babiloni, Fabio
- Venue
- Journal of Neuroscience Methods
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 167
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-42
- ISSN
- 0165-0270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2098951185
- Cited by
- 115
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Cineca Institutional Research Information System (Tor Vergata University) (submittedVersion)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Commission (BM0601)
- Tsinghua University
- National Institutes of Health (GUP03562)
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB006356, EB006356)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Keywords
- high-resolution EEG, brain-computer interface, source localization, individual head model, Tikhonov regularization, motor imagery, sensorimotor rhythm, spectral properties, online BCI, distributed source model, current dipoles, Brodmann areas
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Biofeedback, Psychology, Brain, Brain Mapping, Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Electrodes, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory, Female, Humans, Male, Online Systems, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, User-Computer Interface, Evoked Potentials, Motor
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