Cited by 16EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesMotor Control and AdaptationGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology

Signal-independent noise in intracortical brain–computer interfaces causes movement time properties inconsistent with Fitts’ law

Open access
Willett, Francis R, Murphy, Brian A, Memberg, William D, Blabe, Christine H, Pandarinath, Chethan, Walter, Benjamin L, Sweet, Jennifer A, Miller, Jonathan P +5 more·2017·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

Objective . Do movements made with an intracortical BCI (iBCI) have the same movement time properties as able-bodied movements? Able-bodied movement times typically obey Fitts’ law: MT = a + b log 2 ( D / R ) (where MT is movement time, D is target distance, R is target radius, and a , b are parameters). Fitts’ law expresses two properties of natural movement that would be ideal for iBCIs to restore: (1) that movement times are insensitive to the absolute scale of the task (since movement time depends only on the ratio D / R ) and (2) that movements have a large dynamic range of accuracy (since movement time is logarithmically proportional to D / R ). Approach . Two participants in the BrainGate2 pilot clinical trial made cortically controlled cursor movements with a linear velocity decoder and acquired targets by dwelling on them. We investigated whether the movement times were well described by Fitts’ law. Main results . We found that movement times were better described by the equation MT = a + b D + c R − 2 , which captures how movement time increases sharply as the target radius becomes smaller, independently of distance. In contrast to able-bodied movements, the iBCI movements we studied had a low dynamic range of accuracy (absence of logarithmic proportionality) and were sensitive to the absolute scale of the task (small targets had long movement times regardless of the D / R ratio). We argue that this relationship emerges due to noise in the decoder output whose magnitude is largely independent of the user’s motor command (signal-independent noise). Signal-independent noise creates a baseline level of variability that cannot be decreased by trying to move slowly or hold still, making targets below a certain size very hard to acquire with a standard decoder. Significance . The results give new insight into how iBCI movements currently differ from able-bodied movements and suggest that restoring a Fitts’ law-like relationship to iBCI movements may require non-linear decoding strategies.

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 · 10.1088/1741-2552/aa5990

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Decoding accuracy is the main factor limiting the speed of point-and-click BCIs.

    “The speed of point-and-click BCIs is limited primarily by decoding accuracy.”

    From High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting (2021) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Results (Effect of gain on movement time; page unavailable) report that increasing cursor speed made movements fast but inaccurate, and the Introduction identifies signal-independent decoding noise as the root cause of the movement-time properties observed. This supports a speed–accuracy constraint in the intracortical cursor systems studied, but not the broader claim that decoding accuracy is the primary speed limit for point-and-click BCIs generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In parameter optimization, cursor gain is raised to increase typing speed until decoding errors make the cursor uncontrollable.

    “During parameter optimization, the cursor gain is increased so as to increase typing rate, until the cursor moves so quickly that it becomes uncontrollable due to decoding errors22.”

    From High-performance brain-to-text communication via handwriting (2021) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Results section, “Effect of gain on movement time” (page unavailable), reports that increasing gain initially shortened target-acquisition time, but higher gains made cursor movements fast, inaccurate, and uncontrollable around targets. The paper relates this difficulty to decoding noise, but it studies cursor target acquisition, not typing rate, and does not describe the claimed typing-speed optimization procedure. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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
Willett, F. R., Murphy, B. A., Memberg, W. D., Blabe, C. H., Pandarinath, C., Walter, B. L., Sweet, J. A., Miller, J. P., Henderson, J. M., Shenoy, K. V., Hochberg, L. R., Kirsch, R. F., & Ajiboye, A. B.
Affiliations
  • Cleveland FES Center (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2017-02-08
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
026010
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2586138220
Cited by
16
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (N01HD10018)
  • Craig H. Neilsen Foundation
  • National Science Foundation (GRFP DGE-0951783)
  • Samuel and Betsy Reeves
  • National Institutes of Health (N01HD53403)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • Rehabilitation Research and Development Service (A6779I)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC009899)
  • Stanford BioX-NeuroVentures
  • Larry and Pamela Garlick
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Keywords
intracortical brain-computer interfaces, Fitts' law, movement time, signal-independent noise, target distance, cursor control, neural decoding
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Movement, Psychomotor Performance, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Artifacts, Signal-To-Noise Ratio, 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