Cited by 317EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Clinical application of an EEG-based brain–computer interface: a case study in a patient with severe motor impairment

Neuper, C, Müller, G.R, Kübler, A, Birbaumer, N, Pfurtscheller, G·2003·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

Objective This case study describes how a completely paralyzed patient, diagnosed with severe cerebral palsy, was trained over a period of several months to use an electroencephalography (EEG)-based brain-computer interface (BCI) for verbal communication.Methods EEG feedback training was performed in the patient's home (clinic), supervised from a distant laboratory with the help of a 'telemonitoring system'. Online feedback computation was based on single-trial analysis and classification of specific band power features of the spontaneous EEG. Task-related changes in brain oscillations over the course of training steps was investigated by quantifying time-frequency maps of event-related (de-)synchronization (ERD/ERS).Results The patient learned to 'produce' two distinct EEG patterns, beta band ERD during movement imagery vs. no ERD during relaxing, and to use this for BCI-controlled spelling. Significant learning progress was found as a function of training session, resulting in an average accuracy level of 70% (correct responses) for letter selection. 'Copy spelling' was performed with a rate of approximately one letter per min.Conclusions The proposed BCI training procedure, based on electroencephalogram (EEG) biofeedback and concomitant adaptation of feature extraction and classification, may improve actual levels of communication ability in locked-in patients. 'Telemonitoring-assisted' BCI training facilitates clinical application in a larger number of patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00387-5

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neuper, C., Müller, G. R., Kübler, A., Birbaumer, N., & Pfurtscheller, G.
Affiliations
  • Graz University of Technology (AT)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • University of Trento (IT)
Corresponding author
Neuper, C
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-03
Volume
114
Issue
3
Pages
399-409
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018281395
Cited by
317
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 28
FWCI
4.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
EEG-based brain-computer interface, severe cerebral palsy, locked-in syndrome, motor impairment, remote patient monitoring, event-related desynchronization, event-related synchronization, beta band, movement imagery, spelling, verbal communication
MeSH terms
Adult, Biofeedback, Psychology, Cerebral Palsy, Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Communication Barriers, Electroencephalography, Humans, Male, Motor Cortex, Paralysis, Severity of Illness Index, Somatosensory Cortex, 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