Discrimination of motor imagery-induced EEG patterns in patients with complete spinal cord injury
Open accessAbstract
EEG‐based discrimination between different motor imagery states has been subject of a number of studies in healthy subjects. We investigated the EEG of 15 patients with complete spinal cord injury during imagined right hand, left hand, and feet movements. In detail we studied pair‐wise discrimination functions between the 3 types of motor imagery. The following classification accuracies (mean ± SD) were obtained: left versus right hand 65.03% ± 8.52, left hand versus feet 68.19% ± 11.08, and right hand versus feet 65.05% ± 9.25. In 5 out of 8 paralegic patients, the discrimination accuracy was greater than 70% but in only 1 out of 7 tetraplagic patients. The present findings provide evidence that in the majority of paraplegic patients an EEG‐based BCI could achieve satisfied results. In tetraplegic patients, however, it is expected that extensive training‐sessions are necessary to achieve a good BCI performance at least in some subjects.
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?
Works where users acquired BCI control, in able-bodied and end-user populations, do not report any learning metric over time.
“Firstly, works where users acquired BCI control (able-bodied [3,25] and end-users [40,41,51,62,63]) do not report any learning metric over time.”
From The Cybathlon BCI race: Successful longitudinal mutual learning with two tetraplegic users (2018) · cites this paper as [63]
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 25 · Cited by 88
- Authors
- Pfurtscheller, G., Linortner, P., Winkler, R., Korisek, G., & Müller-Putz, G.
- Affiliations
- Graz University of Technology (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Pfurtscheller, G.
- Venue
- Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 2009
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 104180-104180
- ISSN
- 1687-5265 (ISSN-L)
- 1687-5273
- PMC
- PMC2676319
- OpenAlex
- W2046520025
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 2.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- European Cooperation in Science and Technology (BM0601, 002/06, 27731)
- Life—Spinal Cord Research Foundation (BM0601, 002/06, 27731)
- European Projects Presenccia (BM0601, 002/06, 27731)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Keywords
- motor imagery, EEG, complete spinal cord injury, brain-computer interface, motor imagery classification, paraplegia, tetraplegia, discriminatory accuracy
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
