Brain-computer interfaces in the continuum of consciousness

Current Opinion in Neurology

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 643-649

  Kübler, Andrea ^a   Kotchoubey, Boris ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Awareness; Brain computer interface; Locked in state; Vegetative state

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; BRAIN COMPUTER INTERFACE; BRAIN DEPTH STIMULATION; BRAIN REGION; COGNITION; COMPUTER; COMPUTER INTERFACE; CONSCIOUSNESS DISORDER; HUMAN; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; REVIEW;

BIOFEEDBACK (PSYCHOLOGY); BRAIN; COMMUNICATION AIDS FOR DISABLED; COMPUTERS; CONSCIOUSNESS; CONSCIOUSNESS DISORDERS; DISABILITY EVALUATION; HUMANS; MAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 36049008090     PISSN: 13507540     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e3282f14782     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Birbaumer N, Cohen LG. Brain-computer interfaces: communication and restoration of movement in paralysis. J Physiol 2007; 579 (Pt 3):621-636. Comprehensive review of BCI technology, including functional imaging, clinical applications in various diseases, theoretical implications and future directions.
2. Kübler A, Müller K-R. An introduction to brain-computer interfacing. In: Dornhege G, Millan JdR, Hinterberger T, et al., editors. Towards brain-computer interfacing (pp. 1-25). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (in press).
3. Kübler A, Nijboer F, Birbaumer N. Brain-computer interfaces for communication and motor control: perspectives on clinical application. In: Dornhege G, Millan JdR, Hinterberger T, et al., editors. Towards brain-computer interfacing (pp. 373-391). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (in press).
4. Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MA. Brain-machine interfaces: past, present and future. Trends Neurosci 2006; 29:536-546. Review of BCIs with the focus on invasive technology used in animals.
5. Schwartz AB. Cortical neural prosthetics. Annu Rev Neurosci 2004; 27:487-507.
6. Birbaumer N, Ghanayim N, Hinterberger T, et al. A spelling device for the paralysed. Nature 1999; 398:297-298.
7. Kübler A, Neumann N, Kaiser J, et al. Brain-computer communication: self-regulation of slow cortical potentials for verbal communication. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82:1533-1539.
8. Donoghue JP, Nurmikko A, Black M, Hochberg LR. Assistive technology and robotic control using motor cortex ensemble-based neural interface systems in humans with tetraplegia. J Physiol 2007; 579 (Pt 3):603-611.
9. Hochberg LR, Serruya MD, Friehs GM, et al. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature 2006; 442:164-171. First publication examining an intracortical electrode array in a human with spinal cord injury.
10. deCharms RC, Maeda F, Glover GH, et al. Control over brain activation and pain learned by using real-time functional MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102:18626-18631.
11. Strehl U, Leins U, Goth G, et al. Self-regulation of slow cortical potentials: a new treatment for children with ADHD. Pediatrics 2006; 118:e1530-e1540. A well controlled study to demonstrate the specific effects of biofeedback as a therapeutic tool.
12. Kotchoubey B, Strehl U, Uhlmann C, et al. Modification of slow cortical potentials in patients with refractory epilepsy: a controlled outcome study. Epilepsia 2001; 42:406-416.
13. Mazzone P, Lozano A, Stanzione P, et al. Implantation of human pedunculopontine nucleus: a safe and clinically relevant target in Parkinson's disease. Neuroreport 2005; 16:1877-1881.
14. Zenner HP, Leysieffer H, Maassen M, et al. Human studies of a piezoelectric transducer and a microphone for a totally implantable electronic hearing device. Am J Otol 2000; 21:196-204.
15. Wolpaw JR, McFarland DJ. Control of a two-dimensional movement signal by a noninvasive brain-computer interface in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004; 101:17849-17854.
16. Kübler A, Winter S, Birbaumer N. The thought translation device: slow cortical potential biofeedback for verbal communication in paralysed patients. In: Schwartz MS, Andrasik F, editors. Biofeedback: a practitioner's guide, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2003. pp. 471-481.
17. Blankertz B, Dornhege G, Krauledat M, et al. The noninvasive Berlin brain-computer interface: fast acquisition of effective performance in untrained subjects. Neuroimage 2007; 37:539-550. The machine learning approach to BCI; after a short calibration session healthy individuals control the BCI with high accuracy.
18. Felton EA, Wilson JA, Williams JC, Garell PC. Electrocorticographically controlled brain-computer interfaces using motor and sensory imagery in patients with temporary subdural electrode implants: report of four cases. J Neurosurg 2007; 106:495-500. Study using the electrocorticogram for BCI control. None of the patients was in need of a BCI, but the feasibility of the method is demonstrated.
19. Leuthardt EC, Miller KJ, Schalk G, et al. Electrocorticography- based brain computer interface: the Seattle experience. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2006; 14:194-198.
20. Hill NJ, Lal TN, Schroder M, et al. Classifying EEG and ECoG signals without subject training for fast BCI implementation: comparison of nonparalyzed and completely paralyzed subjects. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2006; 14:183-186. Healthy individuals produce classifiable brain signals, patients do not. A study sounding a note of caution that, from the performance of healthy individuals, the feasibility of a BCI for paralysed patients must not be inferred.
21. Kübler A, Nijboer F, Mellinger J, et al. Patients with ALS can use sensorimotor rhythms to operate a brain-computer interface. Neurology 2005; 64:1775-1777.
22. Sellers EW, Donchin E. A P300-based brain-computer interface: initial tests by ALS patients. Clin Neurophysiol 2006; 117:538-548. The first study with impaired patients showing the feasibility of this approach for this patient group.
23. Mellinger J, Schalk G, Braun C, et al. An MEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI). Neuroimage 2007; 36:581-593. Feedback of the magnetic activity of the brain during motor imagery. The first study to close the loop meaning that online results are reported.
24. Kauhanen L, Nykopp T, Lehtonen J, et al. EEG and MEG brain-computer interface for tetraplegic patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2006; 14:190-193. Comparison of off-line results of EEG and MEG data during attempted finger movement in tetraplegic patients.
25. Weiskopf N, Sitaram R, Josephs O, et al. Real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging: methods and applications. Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25:989-1003. State-of-the-art in real-time fMRI, including new technical developments, quality assurance, teaching and clinical applications.
26. Caria A, Veit R, Sitaram R, et al. Regulation of anterior insular cortex activity using real-time fMRI. Neuroimage 2007; 35:1238-1246. Study showing the differential effect of activation/deactivation of the insular cortex on valence rating of negative and neutral pictures.
27. Sitaram R, Zhang H, Guan C, et al. Temporal classification of multichannel near-infrared spectroscopy signals of motor imagery for developing a brain-computer interface. Neuroimage 2007; 34:1416-1427. First demonstration of the feasibility of NIRS for BCI control.
28. Smith E, Delargy M. Locked-in syndrome. BMJ 2005; 330:406-409.
29. Kotchoubey B, Lang S, Bostanov V, Birbaumer N. Cortical processing in Guillain-Barré syndrome after years of total immobility. J Neurol 2003; 250:1121-1123.
30. Hayashi H, Kato S. Total manifestations of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: ALS in the totally locked-in state. J Neurol Sci 1989; 93:19-35.
31. Kotchoubey B, Lang S, Winter S, Birbaumer N. Cognitive processing in completely paralyzed patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Eur J Neurol 2003; 10:551-558.
32. Kübler A, Kotchoubey B, Hinterberger T, et al. The thought translation device: a neurophysiological approach to communication in total motor paralysis. Exp Brain Res 1999; 124:223-232.
33. Wolpaw JR, Flotzinger D, Pfurtscheller G, McFarland DJ. Timing of EEG-based cursor control. J Clin Neurophysiol 1997; 14:529-538.
34. Giacino JT. Disorders of consciousness: differential diagnosis and neuropathologic features. Semin Neurol 1997; 17:105-111.
35. Giacino JT, Cicerone KD. Varieties of deficit unawareness after brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1998; 13:1-15.
36. Tavalaro J, Tayson R. Lookup for yes. New York: Penguin Books; 1998.
37. Pantke KH. [Locked-in: imprisoned in one's own body]. Frankfurt: Mabuse-Verlag; 1999.
38. Müller G. [In the world of hallucinations: imprisoned in the ego after stroke]. Berlin: LIS e.V; 2002.
39. Chia LG. Locked-in state with bilateral internal capsule infarcts. Neurology 1984; 34:1365-1367.
40. Chia LG. Locked-in syndrome with bilateral ventral midbrain infarcts. Neurology 1991; 41:445-446.
41. Park SA, Sohn YH, Kim WC. Locked-in syndrome with bilateral peduncular infarct. J Neuroimaging 1997; 7:126-128.
42. Paulus KS, Magnano I, Piras MR, et al. Visual and auditory event-related potentials in sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 113:853-861.
43. Hanagasi HA, Gurvit IH, Ermutlu N, et al. Cognitive impairment in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: evidence from neuropsychological investigation and eventrelated potentials. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2002; 14:234-244.
44. Vieregge P, Wauschkuhn B, Heberlein I, et al. Selective attention is impaired in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a study of event-related EEG potentials. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 1999; 8:27-35.
45. Kotchoubey B, Lang S, Mezger G, et al. Information processing in severe disorders of consciousness: vegetative state and minimally conscious state. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116:2441-2453.
46. Menon DK, Owen AM, Williams EJ, et al. Cortical processing in persistent vegetative state. Lancet 1998; 352:200.
47. Owen AM, Coleman MR, Menon DK, et al. Using a hierarchical approach to investigate residual auditory cognition in persistent vegetative state. Prog Brain Res 2005; 150:457-471.
48. Owen AM, Coleman MR, Boly M, et al. Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science 2006; 313:1402. Study using a volitional paradigm to address cognitive processing in nonresponsive patients: brain activation during motor imagery is clearly distinguishable from activation during spatial navigation. The same patterns as in healthy controls may be found in patients in the vegetative state, indicating misdiagnosis, and clearly demonstrates the use of neuroscientific methods in the process of diagnosis.
49. Kotchoubey B, Daltrozzo J, Wioland N, et al. Semantic processing in a coma patient. Grand Rounds 2005; 5:37-41.
50. Daltrozzo J. Assessment of cognitive functions in coma patients. Doctorate thesis presented to Université Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg (in press).
51. Boly M, Faymonville ME, Peigneux P, et al. Auditory processing in severely brain injured patients: differences between the minimally conscious state and the persistent vegetative state. Arch Neurol 2004; 61:233-238.
52. Kotchoubey B. Vegetative state. In: Squire L, editor. Encyclopedia of neuroscience. Amsterdam: Elsevier (in press).
53. Andrews K, Murphy L, Munday R, Littlewood C. Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit. BMJ 1996; 313:13-16.
54. Childs NL, Mercer WN, Childs HW. Accuracy of diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Neurology 1993; 43:1465-1467.
55. Giacino JT, Ashwal S, Childs N, et al. The minimally conscious state: definition and diagnostic criteria. Neurology 2002; 58:349-353.
56. Kotchoubey B. Event-related potentials predict the outcome of the vegetative state [editorial]. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118:477-479. A brief review on the main problems of electrophysiology in disorders of consciousness, as well as possible ways to resolve these problems.
57. Wijnen VJ, van Boxtel GJ, Eilander HJ, deGelder B. Mismatchnegativity predicts recovery from the vegetative state. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118: 597-605. The importance of this study is determined by two findings. First, the mismatch negativity (MMN) ERP component is shown to be closely related to actual and future state of consciousness in vegetative state and MCS patients; second, the MMN distinguishes not only between the clinically distinct vegetative state and persistent vegetative state, but also within the range of subtypes of vegetative state and MCS.
58. Hoffmann U, Vesin JM, Ebrahimi T, Diserens K. An efficient P300-based brain-computer interface for disabled subjects. J Neurosci Methods 2007; 13 March [Epub ahead of print]. Demonstration that patients paralysed due to different diseases may achieve up to 100% selection accuracy with a BCI based on ERPs.
59. Hill NJ, Lal TN, Bierig K, et al. An auditory paradigm for brain-computer interfaces. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press; 2005. pp. 569-576.
60. Müller-Putz GR, Scherer R, Neuper C, Pfurtscheller G. Steady-state somatosensory evoked potentials: suitable brain signals for brain-computer interfaces? IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2006; 14:30-37. Demonstration that focussing attention on tactile stimulation to both hands can lead to distinguishable signals which can be used for a selection process. Important for paralysed patients who have lost vision.
61. Nijboer F, Furdea A, Gunst I, et al. An auditory brain-computer interface (BCI). J Neurosci Methods 2007; 20 February [Epub ahead of print]. Introduction of auditory feedback of sensorimotor rhythms regulated by motor imagery.
62. Cincotti F, Kauhanen L, Aloise F, et al. Vibrotactile feedback of brain-computer interface operation. Computat Intelligence Neurosci (in press).
63. Neumann N, Kotchoubey B. Assessment of cognitive functions in severely paralysed and severely brain-damaged patients: neuropsychological and electrophysiological methods. Brain Res Brain Res Protoc 2004; 14:25-36.
64. Boly M, Coleman MR, Davis MH, Hampshire A, et al. When thoughts become actions: an fMRI paradigm to study volitional brain activity in noncommunicative brain injured patients. Neuroimage 2007; 36:979-992. Imagery, by instruction, of tennis playing and spatial navigation produces the two best discriminable BOLD responses in each and every patient. This imagery can, therefore, be used to test the presence of conscious processes in nonresponsive patients.
65. Lang S, Kotchoubey B, Lutz A, Birbaumer N. What are you doing when you are doing nothing? ERP components without a cognitive task. Z Exp Psychol 1997; 44:138-162.
66. Lang S, Kotchoubey B. Brain responses to number sequences with and without active task requirement. Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 113:1734-1741.
67. Neumann N, Hinterberger T, Kaiser J, Leins U, et al. Automatic processing of self-regulation of slow cortical potentials: evidence from brain-computer communication in paralysed patients. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115:628-635.
68. Skinner BF. The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychol Rev 1945; 52:270-277.