Cited by 63EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringMuscle activation and electromyography studies

Motor cortical activity changes during neuroprosthetic-controlled object interaction

Open access
Downey, John E., Brane, Lucas, Gaunt, Robert A., Tyler-Kabara, Elizabeth C., Boninger, Michael L., Collinger, Jennifer L.·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Brain-computer interface (BCI) controlled prosthetic arms are being developed to restore function to people with upper-limb paralysis. This work provides an opportunity to analyze human cortical activity during complex tasks. Previously we observed that BCI control became more difficult during interactions with objects, although we did not quantify the neural origins of this phenomena. Here, we investigated how motor cortical activity changed in the presence of an object independently of the kinematics that were being generated using intracortical recordings from two people with tetraplegia. After identifying a population-wide increase in neural firing rates that corresponded with the hand being near an object, we developed an online scaling feature in the BCI system that operated without knowledge of the task. Online scaling increased the ability of two subjects to control the robotic arm when reaching to grasp and transport objects. This work suggests that neural representations of the environment, in this case the presence of an object, are strongly and consistently represented in motor cortex but can be accounted for to improve BCI performance.

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 · 10.1038/s41598-017-17222-3

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • Using the same fundamental neural decoding and control methods, two participants have achieved similar scores on functional tasks with vision alone.

    “First, using the same fundamental neural decoding and control methods, two participants have achieved similar scores on functional tasks with vision alone (5, 6, 28).”

    From A brain-computer interface that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control (2021) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Methods (Study participants; Neural recording and BCI decoder calibration, page unavailable) describe two participants using motor-cortex decoding to control a robotic arm; somatosensory arrays were not used in this experiment. The Results (Online population-level scaling improves BCI object grasping, page unavailable) report fairly close object-interaction success rates with scaling, but the more functional object-transport scores differ substantially: 1.09 versus 5.28 transfers per minute. Thus, the paper does not support a general claim that the participants achieved similar scores on functional tasks. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Downey, J. E., Brane, L., Gaunt, R. A., Tyler-Kabara, E. C., Boninger, M. L., & Collinger, J. L.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Collinger, Jennifer L.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-12-05
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
16947-16947
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2769078659
Cited by
63
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N66001-10-C-4056, contract number N66001-10-C-4056, N66001-16-C4051)
  • Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
Keywords
brain-computer interface, motor cortex, intracortical recording, upper limb paralysis, tetraplegia, object interaction, neuronal firing rate, robotic arm control, GRASP
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Artificial Limbs, Biomechanical Phenomena, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Cortex, Quadriplegia, Hand Strength, Brain-Computer Interfaces

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