Initial on-line evaluations of the LF-ASD brain-computer interface with able-bodied and spinal-cord subjects using imagined voluntary motor potentials
Abstract
Previous research has focused on developing a brain-controlled switch named the low frequency asynchronous switch design (LF-ASD) that is suitable for intermittent control of devices such as environmental control systems, computers, and neural prostheses. On-line implementations of the LF-ASD have shown promising results in response to actual index finger flexions with able-bodied subjects. This paper reports the results of initial on-line evaluations of the LF-ASD brain-controlled switch with both able-bodied subjects and subjects with high-level spinal-cord injuries. This paper has demonstrated that users can activate the LF-ASD switch by imaging movement. In this paper, two able-bodied subjects were able to control the LF-ASD with imagined voluntary movements with hit (true positive) rates above 70% and false positive rates below 3% while two subjects with high-level spinal-cord injuries demonstrated hit rates ranging from 45-48% and false positive rates below 1%.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From The Cybathlon BCI race: Successful longitudinal mutual learning with two tetraplegic users (2018) · cites this paper as [48]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 97
- Authors
- Birch, G. E., Bozorgzadeh, Z., & Mason, S. G.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Neil Squire Society (CA)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 219-224
- ISSN
- 1534-4320 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-0210
- OpenAlex
- W2112090229
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 1.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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, motor imagery, spinal cord injury, high spinal cord injury, neural prostheses, environmental control systems, index finger flexion
- MeSH terms
- Action Potentials, Adult, Brain Mapping, Communication Devices for People with Disabilities, Electroencephalography, False Negative Reactions, False Positive Reactions, Fingers, Humans, Imagination, Male, Motor Neurons, Movement, Online Systems, Predictive Value of Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Spinal Cord Injuries, User-Computer Interface, Volition, Reproducibility of Results
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
