Quadcopter control in three-dimensional space using a noninvasive motor imagery-based brain–computer interface
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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.”
From Noninvasive Electroencephalogram Based Control of a Robotic Arm for Reach and Grasp Tasks (2016) · cites this paper as [15]
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).”
From Noninvasive neuroimaging enhances continuous neural tracking for robotic device control (2019) · cites this paper as [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
- 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
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2013-06-04
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 046003
- ISSN
- 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-2560
- PMC
- PMC3839680
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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