Cited by 583EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyMuscle activation and electromyography studies

Quadcopter control in three-dimensional space using a noninvasive motor imagery-based brain–computer interface

Open access
LaFleur, Karl, Cassady, Kaitlin, Doud, Alexander, Shades, Kaleb, Rogin, Eitan, He, Bin·2013·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: At the balanced intersection of human and machine adaptation is found the optimally functioning brain-computer interface (BCI). In this study, we report a novel experiment of BCI controlling a robotic quadcopter in three-dimensional (3D) physical space using noninvasive scalp electroencephalogram (EEG) in human subjects. We then quantify the performance of this system using metrics suitable for asynchronous BCI. Lastly, we examine the impact that the operation of a real world device has on subjects' control in comparison to a 2D virtual cursor task. APPROACH: Five human subjects were trained to modulate their sensorimotor rhythms to control an AR Drone navigating a 3D physical space. Visual feedback was provided via a forward facing camera on the hull of the drone. MAIN RESULTS: Individual subjects were able to accurately acquire up to 90.5% of all valid targets presented while travelling at an average straight-line speed of 0.69 m s(-1). SIGNIFICANCE: Freely exploring and interacting with the world around us is a crucial element of autonomy that is lost in the context of neurodegenerative disease. Brain-computer interfaces are systems that aim to restore or enhance a user's ability to interact with the environment via a computer and through the use of only thought. We demonstrate for the first time the ability to control a flying robot in 3D physical space using noninvasive scalp recorded EEG in humans. Our work indicates the potential of noninvasive EEG-based BCI systems for accomplish complex control in 3D physical space. The present study may serve as a framework for the investigation of multidimensional noninvasive BCI control in a physical environment using telepresence robotics.

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 · 10.1088/1741-2560/10/4/046003

Cites

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?

  • The present study represents an entirely new investigation for human subjects to control a robotic arm for reaching, grasping and moving using noninvasive EEG signals.

    “While we used motor imagery paradigm and decoded the subject’s intention under the ERD/ERS framework as we used in our previous study to control a quadcopter15, the present study represents an entirely new investigation for human subjects to control a robotic arm for reaching, grasping and moving using noninvasive EEG signals.”
  • Naïve participants with PVC above 80% for both runs of any DT dimension were excluded from the training cohort as proficient.

    “Naïve participants obtaining percent valid correct (PVC) values of >80% for both runs of any of the three DT dimensions were excluded from the training cohort as these users are often considered proficient (n=5/38) (14, 28).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 583

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Vallabhaneni A Wang T He B He B Brain-computer interface 2005 Springer

Authors
LaFleur, K., Cassady, K., Doud, A., Shades, K., Rogin, E., & He, B.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
He, Bin
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2013-06-04
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
046003
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2141885969
Cited by
583
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 12
FWCI
21.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0933067, 1069104)
  • University of Minnesota
  • National Institutes of Health (DGE-1069104)
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
  • Office of Naval Research (N000141110690)
  • National Eye Institute (P30EY011374)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB006433, EB006433)
  • Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems
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
brain-computer interface, quadcopter control, EEG, motor imagery, sensorimotor rhythm, AR.Drone, asynchronous BCI, neurodegenerative diseases
MeSH terms
Adult, Aircraft, Algorithms, Biofeedback, Psychology, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Man-Machine Systems, Motor Cortex, Movement, Task Performance and Analysis, Young Adult, 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