Cited by 165EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringSpinal Cord Injury Research

Home Use of a Percutaneous Wireless Intracortical Brain-Computer Interface by Individuals With Tetraplegia

Open access
Simeral, John D., Hosman, Thomas, Saab, Jad, Flesher, Sharlene N., Vilela, Marco, Franco, Brian, Kelemen, Jessica N., Brandman, David M. +8 more·2021·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Individuals with neurological disease or injury such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, spinal cord injury or stroke may become tetraplegic, unable to speak or even locked-in. For people with these conditions, current assistive technologies are often ineffective. Brain-computer interfaces are being developed to enhance independence and restore communication in the absence of physical movement. Over the past decade, individuals with tetraplegia have achieved rapid on-screen typing and point-and-click control of tablet apps using intracortical brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs) that decode intended arm and hand movements from neural signals recorded by implanted microelectrode arrays. However, cables used to convey neural signals from the brain tether participants to amplifiers and decoding computers and require expert oversight, severely limiting when and where iBCIs could be available for use. Here, we demonstrate the first human use of a wireless broadband iBCI. METHODS: Based on a prototype system previously used in pre-clinical research, we replaced the external cables of a 192-electrode iBCI with wireless transmitters and achieved high-resolution recording and decoding of broadband field potentials and spiking activity from people with paralysis. Two participants in an ongoing pilot clinical trial completed on-screen item selection tasks to assess iBCI-enabled cursor control. RESULTS: Communication bitrates were equivalent between cabled and wireless configurations. Participants also used the wireless iBCI to control a standard commercial tablet computer to browse the web and use several mobile applications. Within-day comparison of cabled and wireless interfaces evaluated bit error rate, packet loss, and the recovery of spike rates and spike waveforms from the recorded neural signals. In a representative use case, the wireless system recorded intracortical signals from two arrays in one participant continuously through a 24-hour period at home. SIGNIFICANCE: Wireless multi-electrode recording of broadband neural signals over extended periods introduces a valuable tool for human neuroscience research and is an important step toward practical deployment of iBCI technology for independent use by individuals with paralysis. On-demand access to high-performance iBCI technology in the home promises to enhance independence and restore communication and mobility for individuals with severe motor impairment.

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 · 10.1109/tbme.2021.3069119

Cites

69 of 69 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?

  • Several studies indicate that UEAs retain their functionality in humans for more than 1000 days.

    “and several studies indicate that UEAs retain their functionality in humans for more than 1000 days (29, 31).”

    From Visual percepts evoked with an intracortical 96-channel microelectrode array inserted in human occipital cortex (2021) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results section (page unavailable) shows that implanted intracortical arrays supported computer use in two people with tetraplegia, including T5 on trial day 588. The References section cites a study reporting cursor control 1000 days after array implantation, but this paper does not report functionality for more than 1000 days. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Wireless versions of the UEA and other systems have been developed, but these prototype systems are not yet sufficiently robust for clinical use.

    “A clinical cortical visual prosthesis would be expected to use wireless actuation of the electrode arrays, and although wireless versions of the UEA and other systems have been developed (31, 50, 51), these prototype systems are not yet sufficiently robust for clinical use.”

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
Simeral, J. D., Hosman, T., Saab, J., Flesher, S. N., Vilela, M., Franco, B., Kelemen, J. N., Brandman, D. M., Ciancibello, J. G., Rezaii, P. G., Eskandar, E. N., Rosler, D. M., Shenoy, K. V., Henderson, J. M., Nurmikko, A. V., & Hochberg, L. R.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Feinstein Institute for Medical Research (US)
  • Tulane University (US)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Simeral, John D.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Published
2021-07
Volume
68
Issue
7
Pages
2313-2325
ISSN
  • 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2531
OpenAlex
W3144365080
Cited by
165
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 2
FWCI
14.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • NIH-NINDS (UH2NS095548)
  • Office of Research and Development, Rehabilitation R&D Service, Department of Veterans Affairs (N9228C, N2864C, A2295R, B6453R, P1155R)
  • NIH-NIDCD (R01DC009899, R01DC014034)
  • NIH-NIBIB (R01EB007401)
  • Executive Committee on Research
  • Stanford University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
Keywords
intracortical brain-computer interfaces, wireless neural recording, tetraplegia, paralysis, augmentative and alternative communication, microelectrode arrays, long-term neural recording, locked-in state
MeSH terms
Brain, Hand, Humans, Microelectrodes, Quadriplegia, 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