Cited by 53EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Brain computer interface learning for systems based on electrocorticography and intracortical microelectrode arrays

Open access
Hiremath, Shivayogi V., Chen, Weidong, Wang, Wei, Foldes, Stephen, Yang, Ying, Tyler-Kabara, Elizabeth C., Collinger, Jennifer L., Boninger, Michael L.·2015·Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience

Abstract

A brain-computer interface (BCI) system transforms neural activity into control signals for external devices in real time. A BCI user needs to learn to generate specific cortical activity patterns to control external devices effectively. We call this process BCI learning, and it often requires significant effort and time. Therefore, it is important to study this process and develop novel and efficient approaches to accelerate BCI learning. This article reviews major approaches that have been used for BCI learning, including computer-assisted learning, co-adaptive learning, operant conditioning, and sensory feedback. We focus on BCIs based on electrocorticography and intracortical microelectrode arrays for restoring motor function. This article also explores the possibility of brain modulation techniques in promoting BCI learning, such as electrical cortical stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and optogenetics. Furthermore, as proposed by recent BCI studies, we suggest that BCI learning is in many ways analogous to motor and cognitive skill learning, and therefore skill learning should be a useful metaphor to model BCI learning.

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 · 10.3389/fnint.2015.00040

Cites

152 of 152 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?

  • Co-adaptive interfaces have been proposed as a remedy and increasingly adopted and modeled as a training strategy.

    “On the contrary, co-adaptive (a term we use interchangeably to mutual learning) interfaces, in which the capacities of both learning agents—the brain and the machine—are accommodated and coordinated, has been very early proposed as a remedy [18] and more recently increasingly adopted and modeled as a training strategy [19–21].”
  • Evidence from invasive and semi-invasive BCI shows that learning and co-adaptation have been well documented.

    “Another similar, overstated extrapolation regards evidence from invasive and semi-invasive BCI, where learning and co-adaptation have been well documented [19,23,24,57–59].”

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

2 of the 154 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Blankertz B. Sanelli C. Halder S. Hammer E.-M. Kübler A. Müller K. R. Curio G. (2009). “ Predicting BCI performance to study BCI illiteracy,” in 7th International Symposium on Noninvasive Functional Source Imaging of the Brain and Heart and International Conference on Bioelectromagnetism (Rome, Italy: Sapienza University of Rome).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hiremath, S. V., Chen, W., Wang, W., Foldes, S., Yang, Y., Tyler-Kabara, E. C., Collinger, J. L., & Boninger, M. L.
Affiliations
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Wang, Wei
Venue
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
Published
2015-06-10
Volume
9
Pages
40-40
ISSN
1662-5145 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1558497503
Cited by
53
References
154
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • TUScholarShare (Temple University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Office of Research and Development
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000005, KL2TR000146, 3r01ns050256-05s1)
  • Rehabilitation Research and Development Service
  • Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG024827)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01-NS050256)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
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 › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
electrocorticography, intracortical microelectrode arrays, motor recovery, computer-assisted instruction, operant conditioning, sensory feedback, brain modulation, cortical electrical stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, optogenetics

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