53
|
Huggins JE, Guger C, Ziat M, Zander TO, Taylor D, Tangermann M, Soria-Frisch A, Simeral J, Scherer R, Rupp R, Ruffini G, Robinson DKR, Ramsey NF, Nijholt A, Müller-Putz G, McFarland DJ, Mattia D, Lance BJ, Kindermans PJ, Iturrate I, Herff C, Gupta D, Do AH, Collinger JL, Chavarriaga R, Chase SM, Bleichner MG, Batista A, Anderson CW, Aarnoutse EJ. Workshops of the Sixth International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting: brain-computer interfaces past, present, and future. BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACES 2017; 4:3-36. [PMID: 29152523 PMCID: PMC5693371 DOI: 10.1080/2326263x.2016.1275488] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
The Sixth International Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Meeting was held 30 May-3 June 2016 at the Asilomar Conference Grounds, Pacific Grove, California, USA. The conference included 28 workshops covering topics in BCI and brain-machine interface research. Topics included BCI for specific populations or applications, advancing BCI research through use of specific signals or technological advances, and translational and commercial issues to bring both implanted and non-invasive BCIs to market. BCI research is growing and expanding in the breadth of its applications, the depth of knowledge it can produce, and the practical benefit it can provide both for those with physical impairments and the general public. Here we provide summaries of each workshop, illustrating the breadth and depth of BCI research and highlighting important issues and calls for action to support future research and development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jane E. Huggins
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Christoph Guger
- G.Tec Medical Engineering GmbH, Guger Technologies OG, Schiedlberg, Austria
| | - Mounia Ziat
- Psychology Department, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI, USA
| | - Thorsten O. Zander
- Team PhyPA, Biological Psychology and Neuroergonomics, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Michael Tangermann
- Cluster of Excellence BrainLinks-BrainTools, University of Freiburg, Germany
| | | | - John Simeral
- Ctr. For Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Rehab. R&D Service, Dept. of VA Medical Center, School of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
| | - Reinhold Scherer
- Institute of Neural Engineering, BCI- Lab, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
| | - Rüdiger Rupp
- Section Experimental Neurorehabilitation, Spinal Cord Injury Center, University Hospital in Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Giulio Ruffini
- Neuroscience Business Unit, Starlab Barcelona SLU, Barcelona, Spain
- Neuroelectrics Inc., Boston, USA
| | - Douglas K. R. Robinson
- Institute: Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés (LISIS), Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, MARNE-LA-VALLÉE, France
| | - Nick F. Ramsey
- Dept Neurology & Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Anton Nijholt
- Faculty EEMCS, Enschede, University of Twente, The Netherlands & Imagineering Institute, Iskandar, Malaysia
| | - Gernot Müller-Putz
- Institute of Neural Engineering, BCI- Lab, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
| | - Dennis J. McFarland
- New York State Department of Health, National Center for Adaptive Neurotechnologies, Wadsworth Center, Albany, New York USA
| | - Donatella Mattia
- Clinical Neurophysiology, Fondazione Santa Lucia, Neuroelectrical Imaging and BCI Lab, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Brent J. Lance
- Human Research and Engineering Directorate, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, MD USA
| | | | - Iñaki Iturrate
- Defitech Chair in Brain–machine Interface (CNBI), Center for Neuroprosthetics, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, EPFL-STI-CNBI, Campus Biotech H4, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Christian Herff
- Cognitive Systems Lab, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
| | - Disha Gupta
- Brain Mind Research Inst, Weill Cornell Medical College, Early Brain Injury and Recovery Lab, Burke Medical Research Inst, White Plains, New York, USA
| | - An H. Do
- Department of Neurology, UC Irvine Brain Computer Interface Lab, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Jennifer L. Collinger
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Ricardo Chavarriaga
- Defitech Chair in Brain–machine Interface (CNBI), Center for Neuroprosthetics, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, EPFL-STI-CNBI, Campus Biotech H4, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Steven M. Chase
- Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition and Department Biomedical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Martin G. Bleichner
- Neuropsychology Lab, Department of Psychology, European Medical School, Cluster of Excellence Hearing4all, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
| | - Aaron Batista
- Department of Bioengineering, Swanson School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA USA
| | - Charles W. Anderson
- Department of Computer Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO USA
| | - Erik J. Aarnoutse
- Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, Dept Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
54
|
Davis TS, Wark HAC, Hutchinson DT, Warren DJ, O'Neill K, Scheinblum T, Clark GA, Normann RA, Greger B. Restoring motor control and sensory feedback in people with upper extremity amputations using arrays of 96 microelectrodes implanted in the median and ulnar nerves. J Neural Eng 2016; 13:036001. [PMID: 27001946 DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/13/3/036001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 191] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE An important goal of neuroprosthetic research is to establish bidirectional communication between the user and new prosthetic limbs that are capable of controlling >20 different movements. One strategy for achieving this goal is to interface the prosthetic limb directly with efferent and afferent fibres in the peripheral nervous system using an array of intrafascicular microelectrodes. This approach would provide access to a large number of independent neural pathways for controlling high degree-of-freedom prosthetic limbs, as well as evoking multiple-complex sensory percepts. APPROACH Utah Slanted Electrode Arrays (USEAs, 96 recording/stimulating electrodes) were implanted for 30 days into the median (Subject 1-M, 31 years post-amputation) or ulnar (Subject 2-U, 1.5 years post-amputation) nerves of two amputees. Neural activity was recorded during intended movements of the subject's phantom fingers and a linear Kalman filter was used to decode the neural data. Microelectrode stimulation of varying amplitudes and frequencies was delivered via single or multiple electrodes to investigate the number, size and quality of sensory percepts that could be evoked. Device performance over time was assessed by measuring: electrode impedances, signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), stimulation thresholds, number and stability of evoked percepts. MAIN RESULTS The subjects were able to proportionally, control individual fingers of a virtual robotic hand, with 13 different movements decoded offline (r = 0.48) and two movements decoded online. Electrical stimulation across one USEA evoked >80 sensory percepts. Varying the stimulation parameters modulated percept quality. Devices remained intrafascicularly implanted for the duration of the study with no significant changes in the SNRs or percept thresholds. SIGNIFICANCE This study demonstrated that an array of 96 microelectrodes can be implanted into the human peripheral nervous system for up to 1 month durations. Such an array could provide intuitive control of a virtual prosthetic hand with broad sensory feedback.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T S Davis
- Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
55
|
Leo A, Handjaras G, Bianchi M, Marino H, Gabiccini M, Guidi A, Scilingo EP, Pietrini P, Bicchi A, Santello M, Ricciardi E. A synergy-based hand control is encoded in human motor cortical areas. eLife 2016; 5. [PMID: 26880543 PMCID: PMC4786436 DOI: 10.7554/elife.13420] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2015] [Accepted: 02/13/2016] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
How the human brain controls hand movements to carry out different tasks is still debated. The concept of synergy has been proposed to indicate functional modules that may simplify the control of hand postures by simultaneously recruiting sets of muscles and joints. However, whether and to what extent synergic hand postures are encoded as such at a cortical level remains unknown. Here, we combined kinematic, electromyography, and brain activity measures obtained by functional magnetic resonance imaging while subjects performed a variety of movements towards virtual objects. Hand postural information, encoded through kinematic synergies, were represented in cortical areas devoted to hand motor control and successfully discriminated individual grasping movements, significantly outperforming alternative somatotopic or muscle-based models. Importantly, hand postural synergies were predicted by neural activation patterns within primary motor cortex. These findings support a novel cortical organization for hand movement control and open potential applications for brain-computer interfaces and neuroprostheses. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13420.001 The human hand can perform an enormous range of movements with great dexterity. Some common everyday actions, such as grasping a coffee cup, involve the coordinated movement of all four fingers and thumb. Others, such as typing, rely on the ability of individual fingers to move relatively independently of one another. This flexibility is possible in part because of the complex anatomy of the hand, with its 27 bones and their connecting joints and muscles. But with this complexity comes a huge number of possibilities. Any movement-related task – such as picking up a cup – can be achieved via many different combinations of muscle contractions and joint positions. So how does the brain decide which muscles and joints to use? One theory is that the brain simplifies this problem by encoding particularly useful patterns of joint movements as distinct units or “synergies”. A given task can then be performed by selecting from a small number of synergies, avoiding the need to choose between huge numbers of options every time movement is required. Leo et al. now provide the first direct evidence for the encoding of synergies by the human brain. Volunteers lying inside a brain scanner reached towards virtual objects – from tennis rackets to toothpicks – while activity was recorded from the area of the brain that controls hand movements. As predicted, the scans showed specific and reproducible patterns of activity. Analysing these patterns revealed that each corresponded to a particular combination of joint positions. These activity patterns, or synergies, could even be ‘decoded’ to work out which type of movement a volunteer had just performed. Future experiments should examine how the brain combines synergies with sensory feedback to allow movements to be adjusted as they occur. Such findings could help to develop brain-computer interfaces and systems for controlling the movement of artificial limbs. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13420.002
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Leo
- Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.,Research Center 'E. Piaggio', University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Giacomo Handjaras
- Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Matteo Bianchi
- Research Center 'E. Piaggio', University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.,Advanced Robotics Department, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy
| | - Hamal Marino
- Research Center 'E. Piaggio', University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Marco Gabiccini
- Research Center 'E. Piaggio', University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.,Advanced Robotics Department, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.,Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Andrea Guidi
- Research Center 'E. Piaggio', University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Enzo Pasquale Scilingo
- Research Center 'E. Piaggio', University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.,Department of Information Engineering, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Pietro Pietrini
- Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.,Research Center 'E. Piaggio', University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.,Clinical Psychology Branch, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy.,IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Lucca, Italy
| | - Antonio Bicchi
- Research Center 'E. Piaggio', University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.,Advanced Robotics Department, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy
| | - Marco Santello
- School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
| | - Emiliano Ricciardi
- Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.,Research Center 'E. Piaggio', University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|