Cited by 84EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsSpinal Cord Injury Research

Functional Rehabilitation of the Paralyzed Upper Extremity After Spinal Cord Injury by Noninvasive Hybrid Neuroprostheses

Rupp, Rudiger, Rohm, Martin, Schneiders, Matthias, Kreilinger, Alex, Muller-Putz, Gernot R.·2015·Proceedings of the IEEE

Abstract

For individuals with high spinal cord injury (SCI), restoring missing grasping function is a high priority. Neuroprostheses based on functional electrical stimulation (FES) can partly compensate the loss of upper extremity function in people suffering from tetraplegia. With noninvasive, multichannel neuroprostheses a pinch and power grasp can be accomplished for everyday use. Hybrid systems combining FES with active orthoses hold promise for restoring a completely lost arm function. Novel control interfaces are needed to make full use of the many degrees of freedom of complex hybrid neuroprostheses. Motor imagery (MI)-based brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are an emerging technology that may serve as a valuable adjunct to traditional control interfaces for neuroprosthetic control. Shared control and context-specific autonomy are most effective for reducing the users' workload. The modularity of upper extremity neuroprostheses as well as their associated control interfaces enable customization of the systems to adapt to the impairment and needs of each individual end user. This work provides an overview of the application of noninvasive hybrid BCI-controlled upper extremity neuroprostheses in individuals with high SCI with a strong focus on the results from the European Integrated Project Tools for Brain-Computer Interaction and will describe the challenges and promises for the future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/jproc.2015.2395253

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The high-yielding application performances come as a result of the pilots' ability to adequately master all four individual subtasks required by the application: intentional control for spin, jump, slide and intentional non-control for rest/idle.

    “Fig 2 illustrates that the high-yielding application performances come as a result of our pilots' ability to adequately master all four individual subtasks required by the application: the intentional control (IC) ability to deliver the correct command on the action pads (spin, jump, slide) and the intentional non-control (INC) ability to “rest/idle” on the white pads [48–50].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 99 · Cited by 84

Authors
Rupp, R., Rohm, M., Schneiders, M., Kreilinger, A., & Muller-Putz, G. R.
Affiliations
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Graz University of Technology (AT)
Venue
Proceedings of the IEEE
Published
2015-06
Volume
103
Issue
6
Pages
954-968
ISSN
  • 0018-9219 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2256
OpenAlex
W1694127584
Cited by
84
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
6.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the IEEE (publishedVersion)
Funders
European ICT Program Project “Tools for Brain-Computer Interaction-TOBI” (FP7-224631)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
Keywords
spinal cord injury, upper limb paralysis, tetraplegia, functional electrical stimulation, active orthoses, brain-computer interface, motor imagery, shared control

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