Cited by 1,512EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyMuscle activation and electromyography studies

Control of a two-dimensional movement signal by a noninvasive brain-computer interface in humans

Open access
Wolpaw, Jonathan R., McFarland, Dennis J.·2004·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can provide communication and control to people who are totally paralyzed. BCIs can use noninvasive or invasive methods for recording the brain signals that convey the user's commands. Whereas noninvasive BCIs are already in use for simple applications, it has been widely assumed that only invasive BCIs, which use electrodes implanted in the brain, can provide multidimensional movement control of a robotic arm or a neuroprosthesis. We now show that a noninvasive BCI that uses scalp-recorded electroencephalographic activity and an adaptive algorithm can provide humans, including people with spinal cord injuries, with multidimensional point-to-point movement control that falls within the range of that reported with invasive methods in monkeys. In movement time, precision, and accuracy, the results are comparable to those with invasive BCIs. The adaptive algorithm used in this noninvasive BCI identifies and focuses on the electroencephalographic features that the person is best able to control and encourages further improvement in that control. The results suggest that people with severe motor disabilities could use brain signals to operate a robotic arm or a neuroprosthesis without needing to have electrodes implanted in their brains.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0403504101

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Wolpaw, J. R., & McFarland, D. J.
Affiliations
New York State Department of Health (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2004-12-07
Volume
101
Issue
51
Pages
17849-17854
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2103494817
Cited by
1,512
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 76 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 107 · 2013: 108 · 2012: 95
FWCI
27.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (EB 00856, R01EB000856)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD030146, HD30146)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
Keywords
non-invasive brain-computer interface, EEG, point-to-point control, adaptive algorithms, spinal cord injury, motor impairment, neural prostheses, robotic arm control
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Brain, Female, Humans, Male, Man-Machine Systems, Movement, Robotics, 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