Cited by 85EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Motor imagery for severely motor-impaired patients: evidence for brain-computer interfacing as superior control solution

Open access
Höhne, Johannes, Holz, Elisa, Staiger-Sälzer, Pit, Müller, Klaus-Robert, Kübler, Andrea, Tangermann, Michael·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) strive to decode brain signals into control commands for severely handicapped people with no means of muscular control. These potential users of noninvasive BCIs display a large range of physical and mental conditions. Prior studies have shown the general applicability of BCI with patients, with the conflict of either using many training sessions or studying only moderately restricted patients. We present a BCI system designed to establish external control for severely motor-impaired patients within a very short time. Within only six experimental sessions, three out of four patients were able to gain significant control over the BCI, which was based on motor imagery or attempted execution. For the most affected patient, we found evidence that the BCI could outperform the best assistive technology (AT) of the patient in terms of control accuracy, reaction time and information transfer rate. We credit this success to the applied user-centered design approach and to a highly flexible technical setup. State-of-the art machine learning methods allowed the exploitation and combination of multiple relevant features contained in the EEG, which rapidly enabled the patients to gain substantial BCI control. Thus, we could show the feasibility of a flexible and tailorable BCI application in severely disabled users. This can be considered a significant success for two reasons: Firstly, the results were obtained within a short period of time, matching the tight clinical requirements. Secondly, the participating patients showed, compared to most other studies, very severe communication deficits. They were dependent on everyday use of AT and two patients were in a locked-in state. For the most affected patient a reliable communication was rarely possible with existing AT.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0104854

Cites

63 of 63 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?

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
Höhne, J., Holz, E., Staiger-Sälzer, P., Müller, K.-R., Kübler, A., & Tangermann, M.
Affiliations
  • Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • Korea University (KR)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Höhne, Johannes
  • Müller, Klaus-Robert
  • Kübler, Andrea
  • Tangermann, Michael
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-08-27
Volume
9
Issue
8
Pages
e104854
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2163486304
Cited by
85
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • FreiDok plus (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg) (submittedVersion)
  • Online Publication Service of Würzburg University (Würzburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Commission (216886)
  • National Research Foundation
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (01GQ0850, MU 987/3-2, EXC‐1086)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GQ0850, 01IB001A)
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (R31‐10008, 01GQ0850)
  • FP7 Information and Communication Technologies (FP7-224631)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
brain-computer interface, motor imagery, locked-in state, EEG-based control, assistive technology, user-centered design, information transfer rate, communication difficulties
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Electroencephalography, Persons with Disabilities, Disabled Persons, Humans, Imagination, Middle Aged, Reaction Time, Self-Help Devices, Time Factors, 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