Developments in the human machine interface technologies and their applications: a review

References

• Wanluk N, Visitsattapongse S, Juhong A, et al. Smart wheelchair based on eye tracking. 9th Biomedical Engineering International Conference (BMEiCON). Laung Prabang, Laos. 2016;1–4. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/bmeicon.2016.7859594
   Google Scholar
• Lech MM, Hill TD, Arvidson AL, et al. Quality management system with human machine interface for industrial automation. United States patent US 6,539,271 B2. 2003 March 25.
   Google Scholar
• Kim IS. Human reliability analysis in the man machine interface design review. Ann Nucl Energy. 2001;28(11):1069–1081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varela DT, Penaloza FG, Rodelas CJV. Characterized bioelectric signals by means of neural networks and wavelets to remotely control a human-machine interface. Sensors. 2019;19(8):1923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zoe S, Gabriel MN, Peter T, et al. Bioelectrical understanding and engineering of cell biology. J R Soc Interface. 2020;17:166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li A, Zhou J, Widelitz RB, et al. Integrating bioelectrical currents and Ca2+ signaling with biochemical signaling in development and pathogenesis. Bioelectricity. 2020;2(3):210–220.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore MM. Real-world applications for brain-computer interface technology. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2003;11(2):162–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buzsaki G, Anastassiou CA, Koch C. The origin of extracellular fields and currents–EEG, ECoG, LFP and spikes. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(6):407–420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark JW. The origin of biopotentials. In: Webster JG, editor. Medical instrumentation: application and design. 4th edition. John Wiley & Sons; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Vasileios CP, Themis PE, Dimitrios IF. Chapter 2 – types and sources of medical and other related data. In: Vasileios C. Pezoulas, Themis P. Exarchos, Dimitrios I. Fotiadis, editors. Medical data sharing, harmonization and analytics. Cambridge (MA): Academic Press; 2020. p. 19–65.
   Google Scholar
• Atwood HL, Mackay WA. In essentials of neurophysiology. Hamilton: B.C. Decker 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Farina D, Stegeman DF, Merletti R. Biophysics of the generation of EMG signals. In: R. Merletti, D. Farina editors. Surface electromyography: physiology, engineering, and applications. Hoboken (NJ): 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Madiha T, Trivailo PM, Milan S. EEG-based BCI control schemes for lower-limb assistive-robots. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12:312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geethanjali P. Myoelectric control of prosthetic hands: state-of-the-art review. Med Devices. 2016;9:247–255.
   Google Scholar
• Huang Q, He S, Wang Q, et al. An EOG-based human–machine interface for wheelchair control. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2018;65(9):2023–2032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Wang B, Zhang C, et al. An EEG/EMG/EOG-based multimodal human-machine interface to real-time control of a soft robot hand. Front Neurorob. 2019;13:7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahin MK, Tharwat A, Gaber T, et al. A wheelchair control system using human-machine interaction: single-modal and multimodal approaches. J Intell Syst. 2019;28(1):115–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong B, Shi Q, Yang Y, et al. Technology evolution from self-powered sensors to AIoT enabled smart homes. Nano Energy. 2021;79:105414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 3 Input/Output Technologies: Current Status and Research Needs. National Research Council. 1997. More Than Screen Deep: Toward Every-Citizen Interfaces to the Nation's Information Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garber L. Gestural technology: moving interfaces in a new direction [technology news]. Computer. 2013;46(10):22–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee Y, Kim J, Jang B, et al. Graphene-based stretchable/wearable self-powered touch sensor. Nano Energy. 2019;62:259–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi Q, Zhang Z, Chen T, et al. Minimalist and multi-functional human machine interface (HMI) using a flexible wearable triboelectric patch. Nano Energy. 2019;62:355–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira A, Celeste WC, Cheein FA, et al. Human-machine interfaces based on EMG and EEG applied to robotic systems. J Neuro-Eng Rehab. 2008;5:10.
   Google Scholar
• Gyuton A, Hall J. Text book of medical physiology. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Papanicolaou AC, Moore BD, Del‘Tsch G. Reorganization of cerebral function following lesions in the left hemisphere. In: Bach-y-rita P, editor. Traumatic brain injury. New York: Demos; 1989. p.105–119.
   Google Scholar
• Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessel TM. Principles of Neural Sciences. 4th ed. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill Education/Medical; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Eysenck MW, Keane MT. Cognitive psychology: a student’s handbook. 6th ed. Hove & Newyork: Psychology Press. Taylor & Francis Group; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• D’Mello AM, Gabrieli JDE, Nee DE. Evidence for hierarchical cognitive control in the human cerebellum. Curr Biol. 2020;30(10):1881–1892.e3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faugeras O, Adde G, Charpiat G, et al. Variational, geometric, and statistical methods for modeling brain anatomy and function. NeuroImage. 2004; 23:S46– S55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srivastava A, Kumari M, Gond DP, et al. Chapter 19 – basic overview of human physiology. In: Paul S, Bhatia D, editors. Smart healthcare for disease diagnosis and prevention. Cambridge (MA): Academic Press; 2020. p. 193–212.
   Google Scholar
• Graimann B, Allison B, Pfurtscheller G. Brain–computer interfaces: a gentle introduction. In: Graimann B, Pfurtscheller G, Allison B, editors. Brain – computer interfaces. The frontiers collection. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Rabie AR, Athanasios VV. Brain computer interface: controls signals review. Neurocomputing. 2017;223:26–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner M, Petersen SE. The attention system of the human brain. Ann Rev Neurosci. 1990;13(1):25–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach-y-Rita P. Brain plasticity as a basis for recovery of functions in humans: recovery function: theoretical considerations for brain injury rehabilitation. Neuropsychologia. 1990;28(6):547–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach-y-Rita P. Recovery of function: theoretical considerations for brain injury rehabilitation. Bern, SW: Hans Huber; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Bach-y-Rita P. Brain plasticity. In: J GOODGOLD, editor. Rehabilitation medicine. St. Louis (MO):CV Mosby Co.; 1988. p.113–118.
   Google Scholar
• Cotman CW, Sampedro MN. Progress in facilitating the recovery of function after central nervous system trauma. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1985;457(1 Hope for a Ne):83–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finger S, LeVere TE, Almli CR, et al. Recovery of function. In: Finger S, Levere TE, Almli CR, Stein DG., editors. Brain injury and recovery. Boston. MA: Springer; 1988. p. 351–361.
   Google Scholar
• Stein DG, Rosen JJ, Butters N., editors. Plasticity and recovery of function in the central nervous system. New York: Academic Press; 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Sale A, Berardi N, Maffei L, at al. Environment and brain plasticity: towards an endogenous pharmacotherapy. Physiol Rev. 2014;94(1):189–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornorski J. The physiological approach to the problem of recent memory. In: Learning A Fessard, editor. Brain mechanisms. Oxford: Blackwell; 1961. p. 115–132.
   Google Scholar
• Monday HR, Younts TJ, Castillo PE. Long-term plasticity of neurotransmitter release: emerging mechanisms and contributions to brain function and disease. Ann Rev Neurosci. 2018;41:299–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golub MD, Chase SM, Batista AP, et al. Brain–computer interfaces for dissecting cognitive processes underlying sensorimotor control. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2016;37:53–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amiri S, Fazel-Rezai R, Asadpour V. A review of hybrid brain-computer interface systems. Adv Hum Comput Interact. 2013;2013:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Chumerin N, Manyakov NV, Vliet MV, et al. Pre-processing and decoding steady-state visual evoked potentials for brain-computer interfaces. Digital image and signal processing for measurement systems. Denmark: River Publishers; 2012. p. 1–33.
   Google Scholar
• Nakanishi M, Wang Y, Wang Y-T, et al. A high-speed brain speller using steady-state visual evoked potentials. Int J Neural Syst. 2014;24(6):1450019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padfield N, Zabalza J, Zhao H, et al. EEG-based brain-computer interfaces using motor-imagery: techniques and challenges. Sensors. 2019;19(6):1423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Tan C, Sun F, et al. A review of EEG-based brain-computer interface systems design. Brain Sci Adv. 2018;4(2):156–167.
   Google Scholar
• Li Z, Yuan Y, Luo L, et al. Hybrid brain/muscle signals powered wearable walking exoskeleton enhancing motor ability in climbing stairs activity. IEEE Trans Med Robot Bionics. 2019;1(4):218–227.
   Google Scholar
• Choi I, Rhiu I, Lee Y, et al. A systematic review of hybrid brain-computer interfaces: taxonomy and usability perspectives. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0176674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang J, Zhou Z, Yin E, et al. Hybrid brain-computer interface (BCI) based on the EEG and EOG signals. Biomed Mater Eng. 2014;24(6):2919–2925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prashant P, Joshi A, Gandhi V. Brain computer interface: a review. 5th Nirma University International Conference on Engineering (NUiCONE). Ahmedabad. 2015. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Cauvery NK, Lingaraju G, Anupama H. Brain-computer interface and its types-a study. Int J Adv Eng Technol. 2012; 3:739–745.
   Google Scholar
• Millan Jose del R, Carmena JM. Invasive or non-invasive: understanding brain-machine interface technology. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2010;29:6–22.
   Google Scholar
• Velliste M, Perel S, Spalding MC, et al. Cortical control of a prosthetic arm for self-feeding. Nature. 2008;453(7198):1098–1101.
   Google Scholar
• Ganguly K, Carmena JM. Emergence of a stable cortical map for neuroprosthetic control. PLOS Biol. 2009;7:1–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behrens E, Zentner J, van Roost D, et al. Subdural and depth electrodes in the presurgical evaluation of epilepsy. Acta Neurochirurgica. 1994;128:84–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yadav MK, Verma U, Parikh H, et al. Minimally invasive transgingival implant therapy: a literature review. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2018;9(2):117.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taussig D, Montavont A, Isnard J. Invasive EEG explorations. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;45(1):113–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassiri JJ, Pugh J, Carline S. Depth electrodes in pediatric epilepsy surgery. The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques. 2013;40:48–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah AK, Mittal S. Invasive electroencephalography monitoring: indications and presurgical planning. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2014;17(Suppl 1):S89–S94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schalk G, Leuthardt EC. Brain-computer interfaces using electrocorticographic signals. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2011;4:140–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Amanpour B, Erfanian A. Classification of brain signals associated with imagination of hand grasping, opening and reaching by means of wavelet-based common spatial pattern and mutual information. Conference proceedings: Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Conference. 2013 Jul 3–7; Osaka, Japan: IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; p. 2224–2227.
   Google Scholar
• Pistohl T, Ball T, Schulze-Bonhage A, et al. Prediction of arm movement trajectories from ECoG-recordings in humans. J Neurosci Methods. 2008;167(1):105–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villringer A, Chance B. Non-invasive optical spectroscopy and imaging of human brain function. Trends Neurosci. 1997;20:435–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sornmo L, Laguna P. Bioelectrical signal processing in cardiac and neurological applications. U.S.A.: Elsevier Academic Press; 2005. p. 688.
   Google Scholar
• Chi YM, Deiss SR, Cauwenberghs G. Non-contact low power EEG/ECG electrode for high density wearable biopotential sensor networks. Sixth International Workshop on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks. Berkeley, CA; 2009. p. 246–250.
   Google Scholar
• Xu J, Yazicioglu RF, Van Hoof C, et al. An active electrode read out circuit. In: Low Power Active Electrode ICs for Wearable EEG Acquisition. Analog Circuits and Signal Processing. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 125.
   Google Scholar
• Gargiulo G, Bifulco P, Cesarelli M, et al. Problems in assessment of novel bio-potential front-end with dry electrode: a brief review. Machines. 2014;2:87–98.
   Google Scholar
• Ball T, Kern M, Mutschler I, et al. Signal quality of simultaneously recorded invasive and non-invasive EEG. NeuroImage. 2009;46(3):708–716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okada Y. Neurogenesis of evoked magnetic fields. In: SJ Williamson, editor. Biomagnetism: an interdisciplinary approach. Springer; 1983. p. 399–408.
   Google Scholar
• Ramadan RA, Refat S, Elshahed MA. Basics of brain computer interface. In: Hassanien A, Azar A., editors. Brain – computer interfaces. Intelligent systems reference library. Cham: Springer; 2015. p. 74.
   Google Scholar
• Fouad MM, Amin KM, El-Bendary N, et al. Brain computer interface: a review. In: Hassanien A, Azar A, editors. Brain – computer interfaces. Vol. 74. Intelligent Systems Reference Library. Springer International Publishing; 2014. p. 3–30.
   Google Scholar
• Kameswara T, Rajyalakshmi M, Prasad TV. An exploration on brain computer interface and its recent trends. IJARAI. Ithaca, New York; 2012;1(8):1.
   Google Scholar
• del R. Milan J, Carmena J. Invasive or noninvasive: understanding brain-machine interface technology. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2010;29(1):16–22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blankertz B, Dornhege G, Lemm S. The Berlin brain – computer interface: machine learning based detection of user specific brain states. J Universal Comput Sci. 2006;2:581–607.
   Google Scholar
• Millan J del R, Ferrez PW, Galan F. Non-invasive brain-machine interaction. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell. 2008;22:959–972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meinicke P, Kapper M, Heumann M, et al. Improving transfer rates in brain computer interfacing: a case study. In: Becker S, Thrun S, Obermayer K, editors. Advances in neural information processing systems 15, MIT Press; 2003. p. 1107–1114.
   Google Scholar
• Lance BJ, Kerick SE, Ries AJ, et al. Brain–computer interface technologies in the coming decades. Proceedings of the IEEE-13. May 2012 100:1585-1599. no. Special centennial issue.
   Google Scholar
• Campisi P, La Rocca D. Brain waves for automatic biometric-based user recognition. IEEE Transinformforensic Secur. 2014;9(5):782–800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohan H. Brain computer interface-controlling devices utilizing the alpha brain waves. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2015;4:281–285.
   Google Scholar
• Merlo A, Farina D, Merletti R. A fast and reliable technique for muscle activity detection from surface EMG signals. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2003;50(3):316–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raurale S. Acquisition and processing real-time EMG signals for prosthesis active hand movements. International Conference on Green Computing Communication and Electrical Engineering (ICGCCEE); March 6–8; Coimbatore, India; 2014. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Saad I, Bais NH, Bun Seng C, et al. Electromyogram (EMG) signal processing analysis for clinical rehabilitation application. 2015 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Modelling and Simulation, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia; 2–4 December; 2015. p. 105–110.
   Google Scholar
• Polisiero M, Bifulco P, Liccardo A, et al. Design and assessment of a low-cost, electromyographically controlled, prosthetic hand. Med Devices. 2013;6:97–110.
   Google Scholar
• Gohel V, Mehendale N. Review on electromyography signal acquisition and processing. Biophys Rev. 2020;12(6):1361–1367.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kavitha C, Nagappan G. Sensing and processing of EOG signals to control human machine interface system. Int J Sci Eng Technol Res. 2015;4(5):1330–1336.
   Google Scholar
• Guo X, Pei W, Wang Y, et al. A human-machine interface based on single channel EOG and patchable sensor. Biomed Signal Process Control. 2016;30:98–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salinet JL, Silva OL. Chapter 2 – ECG signal acquisition systems. In: Madeiro JPV, Cortez PC, Filho JMSM, Brayner ARA, editors. Developments and applications for ECG signal processing. Elsevier; 2019. p. 29–51.
   Google Scholar
• Macfarlane PW, Oosterom AV, Pahlm O, et al. Comprehensive electrocardiology. Vol. 1. 2010. Verlag, London: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Gao Z, Wu J, Zhou J, et al. Design of ECG signal acquisition and processing system. International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Biotechnology, Macau, Macao; May 28–30. 2012. p. 762–764.
   Google Scholar
• Funk M. As health care technology advances: benefits and risks. Am J Crit Care. 2011;20(4):285–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandberg F, Holmer M, Olde B, et al. Monitoring respiration using the pressure sensors in a dialysis machine. Physiol Meas. 2019;40(2):025001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson K, Pearce F, Westenskow D, et al. Clinical evaluation of the life support for trauma and transport (LSTAT) platform. Crit Care. 2002;6(5):439–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sultan S, Mohan P. How to interact: evaluating the interface between mobile healthcare systems and the monitoring of blood sugar and blood pressure. 6th Annual International Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking & Services, MobiQuitous, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2009. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Parati G, Stergiou GS, Asmar R, et al. On behalf of the ESH working group on blood pressure monitoring european society of hypertension guidelines for blood pressure monitoring at home: a summary report of the Second International Consensus Conference on home blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertension. 2008;26(8):1505–1526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinert HD, Harshfield GA, Pickering TG, et al. What is the value of home blood pressure measurement in patients with mild hypertension? Hypertension. 1984; 6:574–578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niiranen T, Rissanen H, Johansson J, et al. Overall cardiovascular prognosis of isolated systolic hypertension, isolated diastolic hypertension and pulse pressure defined with home measurements: the Finn-home study. J Hypertension. 2014;32(3):518–524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant S, Blom AW, Craddock I, et al. Home health monitoring around the time of surgery: qualitative study of patients’ experiences before and after joint replacement. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e032205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan M, Esteve D, Escriba C, et al. A review of smart homes – present state and future challenges. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2008;91(1):55–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li R, Lu B, McDonald-Maier KD. Cognitive assisted living ambient system: a survey. Digit Commun Netw. 2015;1(4):229–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruhunage I, Perera CJ, Nisal K, et al. EMG signal controlled transhumerai prosthetic with EEG-SSVEP based approach for hand open/close. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). Banff, AB, Canada. 2017. 3169–3174.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Li R, Li H, et al. Novel approach for electromyography-controlled prostheses based on facial action. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2020;58:2685–2698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brammer M. The role of neuroimaging in diagnosis and personalized medicine-current position and likely future directions. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2009;11:389–396.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fukaya N, Toyama S, Asfour T, et al. Design of the TUAT/Karlsruhe hand. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE/RS. International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. February 2000. 3: 1754–1759.
   Google Scholar
• Asfour T, Berns K, Schelling J, et al. Programming of Manipulation Tasks of the Humanoid Robot ARMAR. The 9th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR’99). Tokyo, Japan. October 1999. p. 25–27.
   Google Scholar
• Wei L, Hu H, Yuan K. Use of forehead bio-signals for controlling an intelligent wheelchair. Use of forehead bio-signals for controlling an intelligent wheelchair. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, Bangkok. 2009. p. 108–113.
   Google Scholar
• Heloyse UK, Fábio MA, Luciana SOT, et al. The Relationship between Electromyography and Muscle Force. EMG methods for evaluating muscle and nerve function. Editor-Mark Schwartz. Chapter-3. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Kamen G, Caldwell GE. Physiology and interpretation of the electromyogram. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1996;13:366–384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zou L, Ma X, Zhou T, et al. A study on surface EMG generation model and its extraction. 4th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics (BMEI). Shanghai. 2011. p. 908–912.
   Google Scholar
• Alarcao SM, Fonseca MJ. Emotions recognition using EEG signals: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing. 2019 Jul 1–Sep 10. p. 374–393.
   Google Scholar
• Ochoa JB. EEG signal classification for brain computer interface applications. January 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Gao Y, Lee HJ, Mehmood RM. Deep learning of EEG signals for emotion recognition. IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW). Turin, Italy; June 29–Jul 3;2015. p. 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Teplan M. Fundamental of EEG measurement. Measurement Science Review. 2002;2(2):1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Kanwade AB, Gone RV, Ahire SJ, et al. Study of EOG signal generation, analyses, and acquisition system. Int Res J Eng Technol. 2017;4(4):3378–3382.
   Google Scholar
• Merino M, Rivera O, Gomez I, et al. A method of EOG signal processing to detect the direction of eye movements. First International Conference on Sensor Device Technologies and Applications, Venice. 2010. p. 100–105.
   Google Scholar
• Dhillon HS, Singla R, Rekhi NS, et al. EOG and EMG based virtual keyboard: a brain-computer interface. 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, Beijing, China; 2009. p. 259–262.
   Google Scholar
• Gacek A, Pedrycz W. ECG signal processing, classification and interpretation: a comprehensive framework of computational intelligence. London: Springer-Verlag; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Yan J, Wen J, et al. An intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) brain function mapping tool with an application to epilepsy surgery evaluation. Front Neuroinf. 2016; 10:15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2016.00015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang T, Hakimian S, Schwartz TH. Intraoperative electrocorticography (ECog): indications, techniques, and utility in epilepsy surgery. Epileptic Disord. 2014;16(3):271–279.
   Google Scholar
• Namdev K, Siddiqui MM. Different types of electrical signals produced by human body. Int J Adv Res Sci Eng. 2015;4(Special Issue 02):232–239.
   Google Scholar
• Parák J, Havlík J. ECG signal processing and heart rate frequency detection methods. Conference: Technical Computing 2011, Prague, Czech Republic; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Israel SA, Irvine JM, Andrew C, et al. ECG to identify individuals. Pattern Recognit. 2005;38(1):133–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darvas F, Pantazis D, Kucukaltun-Yildirim E, et al. Mapping human brain function with MEG and EEG: methods and validation. NeuroImage. 2004;23:S289–S299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Islam MA, Sundaraj K, Ahmad RB, et al. Mechanomyogram for muscle function assessment: a review. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irfan MR, Sudharshan N, Santhanakrishan S, et al. A comparative study of EMG and MMG signals for practical application. International Conference on Signal, Image Processing and Applications with workshop of ICEEA. 2011. 21:p. 106–110.
   Google Scholar
• Uhlhaas PJ, Liddle P, Linden DEJ, et al. Magnetoencephalography as a tool in psychiatric research: current status and perspective. Biol Psychiatr Cogn Neurosci Neuroimag. 2017;2(3):235–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hari R, Salmelin R. Magnetoencephalography: from SQUIDs to neuroscience: neuroimage 20th anniversary special edition. NeuroImage. 2012;61:386–396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma M, Kacker S, Sharma M. A brief introduction and review on galvanic skin response. IJMRP. 2016;2(6):13–17.
   Google Scholar
• Villarejo MV, Zapirain BG, Zorrilla AM. A stress sensor based on galvanic skin response (GSR) controlled by ZigBee. Sensors. 2012;12:6075–6101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vahey R, Becerra R. Galvanic skin response in mood disorders: a critical review. Int J Psychol Psychol Ther. 2015;15:275–304.
   Google Scholar
• Purkayastha SS, Jain VK, Sardana HK. Topical review: a review of various techniques used for measuring brain activity in brain computer interfaces. Adv Electron Electric Eng. 2014;4:513–522.
   Google Scholar
• Xue G, Chen C, Lu Z. Brain imaging techniques and their applications in decision-making research. Xin li xue bao. Acta psychologica Sinica. 2010;42:120–137.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Piston emission tomography [Online] Available from: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/test_procedures/neurological/positron_emission_tomography_pet_92. p. 07654.
   Google Scholar
• Coyle S, Ward T, Markham C, et al. On the suitability of near-infrared (NIR) systems for next-generation brain–computer interfaces. Physiol Meas. 2004;25:815–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song J, Young BM, Nigogosyan Z, et al. Characterizing relationships of DTI, fMRI, and motor recovery in stroke rehabilitation utilizing brain-computer interface technology. Front Neuroeng. 2014;7:31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moerman A, Wouters P. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) monitoring in contemporary anaesthesia and critical care. Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica. 2010;61(4):185–194.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rahmim A, Zaidi H. PET versus SPECT: strengths, limitations and challenges. Nucl Med Commun. March 2008;29(3):193–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malmivuo J. Biomagnetism. Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. 2017. p. 1–25..
   Google Scholar
• Khalil SF, Mohktar MS, Ibrahim F. The theory and fundamentals of bioimpedance analysis in clinical status monitoring and diagnosis of diseases. Sensors. 2014;14(6):10895–10928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Ma X, Hao Y. Electronic devices for human-machine interfaces. Adv Mater Interfaces. 2017;4(4):1600709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang G, Li L, Xing S, et al. Intelligent HMI in orthopedic navigation. In: Zheng G, Tian W, Zhuang X, editors. Intelligent orthopaedics. Advances in experimental medicine and biology. Vol. 1093. Singapore: Springer; 2018. p. 207–224.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Chen G, Liao H. High-quality see-through surgical guidance system using enhanced 3-D autostereoscopic augmented reality. IEEE Transact Biomed Eng. 2017;64(8):1815–1825.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Li R, Li Y. Research on brain control prosthetic hand. 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence. Kuala Lumpur. 2014. p. 554–557.
   Google Scholar
• Merrill D, Lockhart J, Troyk PR, et al. Development of an implantable myoelectric sensor for advanced prosthesis control. Artif Organs. 2011;35:249–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheesborough JE, Smith LH, Kuiken TA, et al. Targeted muscle reinnervation and advanced prosthetic arms. Seminars Plastic Surg. 2015;29(1):62–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborn LE, Iskarous MM, Thakor NV, et al. Chapter 22 – sensing and control for prosthetic hands in clinical and research applications. In: Rosen J, Ferguson PW, editors. Wearable robotics. Elsevier; 2020. p. 445–468. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-01139-4
   Google Scholar
• Su Y, Fisher MH, Wolczowski A, et al. Towards an EMG-controlled prosthetic hand using a 3-D electromagnetic positioning system. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas. 2017;56:178–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belter JT, Segil JL, Dollar AM, et al. Mechanical design and performance specifications of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: a review. J Rehab Res Dev. 2013;50(5):599–618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyberd PJ, Chappell PH. The Southampton hand: an intelligent myoelectric prosthesis. J Rehab Res Dev. 1994;31(4):326–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu H, Xu K, Siciliano B, et al. The MERO hand: a mechanically robust anthropomorphic prosthetic hand using novel compliant rolling contact joint. IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), Hong Kong, China. 2019. p. 126–132.
   Google Scholar
• Ting Z, Wang XQ, Jiang L, et al. Biomechatronic design and control of an anthropomorphic artificial hand for prosthetic applications. Robotica. 2015;34(10):2291–2308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manfredo A, Matteo C, Henning M, et al. Deep learning with convolutional neural networks applied to electromyography data: a resource for the classification of movements for prosthetic hands. Front Neurorob. 2016;10:9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang N, Lao K, Zhang X. Design and myoelectric control of an anthropomorphic prosthetic hand. J Bionic Eng. 2017;14(1):47–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunner I, Skouen JS, Hofstad H. Virtual reality training for upper extremity in subacute stroke (VIRTUES): a multicenter RCT. Neurology. 2017;89(24):2413–2421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry BN, Armiger RS, Yu KE, et al. Virtual integration environment as an advanced prosthetic limb training platform. Front Neurol. 2018;9:785.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bright D, Nair A, Salvekar D, et al. EEG-based brain controlled prosthetic arm. Conference on Advances in Signal Processing (CASP). Pune. 2016. p. 479–483.
   Google Scholar
• Andrecioli R, Engeberg E. Adaptive sliding manifold slope via grasped object stiffness detection with a prosthetic hand. Mechatronics. 2013;23(8):1171–1179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Liu H, Leng D, et al. New advances in EMG control methods of anthropomorphic prosthetic hand. Sci China Technol Sci. 2017;60(12):1978–1979.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reaz M, Hussain M, Mohd-Yasin F. Techniques of EMG signal analysis: detection, processing, classification and application. Biol Proc. 2006;8:11–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang N, Dosen S, Muller K, et al. Myoelectric control of artificial limbs—is there a need to change focus? [In the Spotlight]. IEEE Signal Proc Mag. Sep. 2012;29:152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krasoulis A, Kyranou I, Erden MS, et al. Improved prosthetic hand control with concurrent use of myoelectric and inertial measurements. J Neuro-Eng Rehab. 2017;14:71.
   Google Scholar
• Olivieri E, Barresi G, Leonardo SM. BCI-based user training in surgical robotics. Conference proceedings: 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Milano, Italy; 2015. p. 4918–4921.
   Google Scholar
• Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research, human mental workload. Vol. 52. Hancock PA, Meshkati N, editors. North-Holland, Amsterdam; 1988. p. 139–183.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher AG, Satava RM, Osullivan GC. Attentional capacity: an essential aspect of surgeon performance. Ann Surg. 2015;261(3):e60–e61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zander T, Shetty K, Lorenz R, et al. Automated task load detection with electroencephalography: towards passive brain–computer interfacing in robotic surgery. J Med Robot Res. 2017;02(01):1750003.
   Google Scholar
• Kristjansson A, Johannesson O, Mitrut O, et al. Designing sensory-substitution devices: principles, pitfalls and potential. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2016;34(5):769–787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• On Visell. Tactile sensory substitution: models for enaction in HCI. Interact Comput. 2009;21(1–2):38–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenay C, Olivier G, Sylvain H, et al. Sensory substitution: limits and perspectives. In: Hatwell Y, Streri A, Gentaz E, editors. Advances in consciousness research. Touching for knowing: cognitive psychology of haptic manual perception. Amsterdam (The Netherlands): John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2003. p. 275–292.
   Google Scholar
• Paterson M. Molyneux, neuroplasticity, and technologies of sensory substitution. In: Glenney B, Silva JF, editors. The senses and the history of philosophy. Routledge; 2019. p. 340–352.
   Google Scholar
• Bach-y-Rita P, Collins C, Saunders F, et al. Vision substitution by tactile image projection. Nature. 1969;221(5184):963–964.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach-y-Rita P, Kercel SW. Sensory substitution and the human–machine interface. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7(12):541–546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capelle C, Trullemans C, Arno P, et al. A real-time experimental prototype for enhancement of vision rehabilitation using auditory substitution. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1998;45:1279–1293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egilmez OK, Kalcioglu MT. Cochlear implant: indications, contraindications and complications. SSM. 2015;47(4):9–28.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler M, Danilov Y, Bach-y-Rita P, et al. Closing an open-loop control system: vestibular substitution through the tongue. J IntegrNeurosci. 2003;2:159–164.
   Google Scholar
• Gori M, Cappagli G, Tonelli A, et al. Devices for visually impaired people: high technological devices with low user acceptance and no adaptability for children. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;69:79–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steven AW, Stephen B. Sensory substitution using tactile pin arrays: human factors, technology and applications. Signal Process. 2006;86(12):3674–3695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collinger JL, Foldes S, Bruns TM, et al. Neuroprosthetic technology for individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2013;36(4):258–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noor NMM, Ahmad S. Analysis of different EOG-based eye movement strength levels for wheelchair control. IJBET. 2013;11(2):175–196.
   Google Scholar
• Millan JR, Renkens F, Mourino J. Non-invasive brain-actuated control of a mobile robot by human EEG. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2004;51:1026–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnip A, Soetraprawata D, Turnip M, et al. EEG-based brain-controlled wheelchair with four different stimuli frequencies. Internetwork Indonesia J 2016;8:65–69.
   Google Scholar
• Geng T, Gan JQ, Hu H. A self-paced online BCI for mobile robot control. Internat J Advance Mechatron Sys. 2010;2(1/2):28–35.
   Google Scholar
• Geng T, Gan JQ. Motor prediction in brain–computer interfaces for controlling mobile robots. 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Vancouver. BC. Canada. 2008. p. 634–637.
   Google Scholar
• Wei L, Hu H. A hybrid human-machine interface for hands-free control of an intelligent wheelchair. IJMA. 2011;1(2):97–111.
   Google Scholar
• Strausser KA, Kazerooni H. The development and testing of a human machine interface for a mobile medical exoskeleton. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, San Francisco, CA. 2011. p. 4911–4916.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2018. Global status report on road safety 2018: summary. World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Dingus TA, Klauser SG, Neale VL, et al. 100-Car naturalistic driving study – phase II – results of the 100-car field experiment. Report No. DOT HS8 10593: Virginia Tech. Transportation Institute – sponsored by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering CA, Bumnham KJ, Richardson MJ. A review of automotive human machine interface technologies and techniques to reduce driver distraction. 2nd Institution of Engineering and Technology International Conference on System Safety. London. 2007. p. 223–228.
   Google Scholar
• Carsten O, Martens MH. How can humans understand their automated cars? HMI principles, problems and solutions. Cogn Tech Work. 2019;21(1):3–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohn-Bar E, Trivedi MM. Hand gesture recognition in real time for automotive interfaces: a multimodal vision-based approach and evaluations. IEEE Trans Intell Transport Syst. 2014;15(6):2368–2377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee FCH, Chan AHS. Attending visual and auditory signals: ergonomics recommendations with consideration of signal modality and spatial stimulus–response (S–R) compatibility. Int J Ind Ergon. 2007;37(3):197–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brebner JMT, Welford AT. Introduction: an historical background sketch. In: Welford, AT, editor. Reaction times. New York: Academic Press;. 1980. p. 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Chan AHS, Chan KWL. Synchronous and asynchronous presentations of auditory and visual signals: implications for control console design. Appl Ergon. 2006;37(2):131–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke JR, Clarke PM Sr; Sleep detection and driver alert apparatus. U.S. Patent No. 5689241. Nov. 18, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Lal KLS, Craig A, Boord P, et al. Development of an algorithm for an EEG-based driver fatigue countermeasure. J Saf Res. 2003;34(3):321–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leavitt L. Sleep-detecting driving gloves. U.S. Patent No. 6016103. Jan 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Bergasa LM, Nuevo J, Sotelo MA, et al. Real-time system for monitoring driver vigilance. IEEE Trans Intell Transport Syst. 2006;7(1):63–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu J-X, Ko M-K. Detection of driver’s low vigilance using vehicle steering information and facial inattention features, in Proc. 20th ITS World Congress. Tokyo, Japan. 2013. p. 2066–2075.
   Google Scholar
• Sigari MH, Fathy M, Soryani M. A driver face monitoring system for fatigue and distraction detection. Int J Vehicular Technol. 2013;2013:1–100.
   Google Scholar
• Giusti A, Zocchi C, Rovetta A. A noninvasive system for evaluating driver vigilance level examining both physiological and mechanical data. IEEE Trans Intell Transport Syst. 2009;10(1):127–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papcun P, Kajáti E, Koziorek J. Human Machine Interface in Concept of Industry 4.0, 2018 World Symposium on Digital Intelligence for Systems and Machines (DISA), Košice, Slovakia. 2018. p. 289–296.
   Google Scholar
• Lu Y. Industry 4.0. A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues. J Ind Inf Integration. 2017;16:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Nahavandi S. Industry 5.0 – a human-centric solution. Sustainability. 2019;11(16):4371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan A, Or CK. A comparison of semantic and spatial stimulus-response compatibility effects for human-machine interface design. EJIE. 2012;6(5):629–643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder. Cybernetics of Tunnel-in-the-Sky Displays. Ph.D. Thesis, delft University of Technology. Faculty of Aerospace. 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Abeloos ALM, Paassen MMV, Marinus M. The applicability of an adaptive human-machine interface in the cockpit. Conference on human decision making and manual control. Ispra. June 26–28, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Bian Y, Zhao L, Li H, et al. Research on multi-modal human-machine interface for aerospace robot. 7th International Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics. Hangzhou, 2015.p. 535–538.
   Google Scholar
• Smith CJ. Design of the Eurofighter human machine interface, air & space Europe. May–June 1999;1:54–59.
   Google Scholar
• Lim Y, Ramasamy S, Gardi A, et al. Cognitive human-machine interfaces and interactions for unmanned aircraft. J Intell Robot Syst. 2018;91(3–4):755–745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gohmert DM. Seating considerations for spaceflight: the human to machine interface. Proceedings of the 5th IAASS Conference. A Safer Space for Safer World by Ouwehand L Noordwijk, Netherlands: European Space Agency. January 2012. p. 20.
   Google Scholar
• Heymann M, Degani A. Constructing human-automation interfaces: a formal approach. Ninth International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Boston. 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Lim Y, Ranasinghe K, Gardi A, et al. Human-machine interfaces and interactions for multi UAS operations. Proceedings of the 31th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS 2018). Belo Horizonte, Brazil. September 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Foster TG. Human machine interface programming and testing. NASA USRP – Internship Final Report. Kennedy Space Center. Major: Computer Engineering. 29 July 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang D, Song F, Xu Y, et al. Advanced pattern recognition technologies with applications to biometrics. Hershey: Medical Information Science Reference. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Pankanti S, Bolle RM, Jain A. Biometrics: the future of identification [Guest editors’ introduction]. Computer. 2000;33(2):46–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marohn D. Biometrics in healthcare. Biom Technol Today. 2006;14(9):9–11.
   Google Scholar
• Li SZ, editor. Encyclopedia of biometrics. Springer, US. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Ratha NK, Senior A, Bolle RM. Automated biometrics. In: Singh S, Murshed N, Kropatsch W, editors. Advances in pattern recognition – ICAPR 2001. Lecture notes in computer science. Vol. 2013. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer; 2001. p. 447–455.
   Google Scholar
• Jain AK, Flynn P, Ross AA. Handbook of biometrics. Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2007. p. 556.
   Google Scholar
• Ortega-Garcia J, Bigun J, Reynolds D, et al. Authentication gets personal with biometrics. IEEE Signal Process Mag. March 2004;21(2):50–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wayman JL. Fundamentals of biometric authentication technologies. Int J Image Grap. 2001;01(01):93–113.
   Google Scholar
• Jain AK, Ross A, Prabhakar S. An introduction to biometric recognition. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol. 2004;14(1):4–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Im SK, Park HM, Kim YW, et al. A biometric identification system by extracting hand vein patterns. J Korean Phys Soc. 2001;38:268–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain AK, Pankanti S, Prabhakar S, et al. Biometrics: a grand challenge. Proc 17th Int Conference on Pattern Recog. Cambridge, UK. 2004;2:935–942.
   Google Scholar
• Page A, Kulkarni A, Mohsenin T. Utilizing deep neural nets for an embedded ECG-based biometric authentication system. IEEE Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference (BioCAS), Atlanta, GA. 2015. p. 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Bharadi V, Pandya B, Nemade B. Multimodal biometric recognition using iris amp; fingerprint: by texture feature extraction using hybrid wavelets. 5th International Conference - Confluence The Next Generation Information Technology Summit 5th Sep 2014. p. 697–702. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CONFLUENCE.2014.6949309
   Google Scholar
• Kumar S, Ansari MD, Naik MV, et al. A comparative case study on machine learning based multi-biometric systems. In: Gunjan V, Senatore S, Kumar A, et al. editors. Advances in cybernetics, cognition, and machine learning for communication technologies. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering. Vol. 643. Singapore: Springer;2020. p. 353–365. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3125-5_36
   Google Scholar
• Uludag U, Pankanti S, Prabhakar S, et al. Biometric cryptosystems: issues and challenges. Proc IEEE. 2004; 92(6):948–960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanitis A. A survey of the effects of aging on biometric identity verification. IJBM. 2010;2(1):34.
   Google Scholar
• Singh YN, Singh SK, Ray AK. Bioelectrical signals as emerging biometrics: issues and challenges. Int Scholar Res Notices. 2012;2012:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Pal A, Gautam AK, Singh YN. Evaluation of bioelectric signals for human recognition. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015;48:746–752.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein C. Military and Government Applications of Human-Machine Communication by Voice. Proc National Acad Sci USA. 1995 [cited 2021 Jan 6];92:10011–10016. .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cupples EJ, Beek B. Proceedings of the NATO/AGARD Lecture Series No. 170, Speech Analysis and Synthesis and Man-Machine Speech Communications for Air Operations. 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Kang GS, Fransen LJ. Speech analysis and synthesis based on pitch-synchronous segmentation of the speech waveform. Washington, DC: Naval Research Laboratories; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Ramasubramanian V, Doddala H. Introduction. In: Ultra low bit-rate speech coding. Springer briefs in electrical and computer engineering. New York: Springer; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Corazza A, De Mori R, Gretter R, et al. Language models for automatic speech recognition. In: Ayuso AJR, Soler JML, editors. Speech recognition and coding. NATO ASI series (series F: computer and systems sciences). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer; 1995. p. 147.
   Google Scholar
• Crescentini C, Fabbro F, Tomasino B. Editorial special topic: enhancing brain and cognition through meditation. J Cogn Enhanc. 2017;1(2):81–83.
   Google Scholar
• Wilms W, Woźniak-Karczewska M, Corvini PF-X, et al. Nootropic drugs: methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam – population use trends, occurrence in the environment, ecotoxicity and removal methods – a review. Chemosphere. 2019;233:771–785.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morton WA, Stockton GG. Methylphenidate abuse and psychiatric side effects. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;2(5):159–164.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim D. Practical use and risk of modafinil, a novel waking drug. Environ Health Toxicol. 2012;27:e2012007.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malykh AG, Sadaie MR. Piracetam and piracetam-like drugs. Drugs. 2010;70:287–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colucci L, Bosco M, Rosario Ziello A, et al. Effectiveness of nootropic drugs with cholinergic activity in treatment of cognitive deficit: a review. J Exp Pharmacol. 2012;4:163–172.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dan-Dan L, Ya-Hon Z, Wei Z, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Front Neurosci. 2019;13:472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santoro A, Siviero P, Minicuci N, et al. Effects of donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine in 938 Italian patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a prospective, observational study. CNS Drugs. 2010;24(2):163–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yesavage JA, Mumenthaler MS, Taylor JL, et al. Donepezil and flight simulator performance: effects on retention of complex skills. Neurology. 2002;59(1):123–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldwell JA, Caldwell JL, Smyth NK, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation of the efficacy of modafinil for sustaining the alertness and performance of aviators: a helicopter simulator study. Psychopharmacology. 2000;150:272–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meng J, Mundahi JH, Streitz TD, et al. Effects of soft drinks on resting state EEG and brain–computer interface performance. IEEE Access. 2017;5:18756–18764.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teter CJ, McCabe SE, Lagrange K, et al. Illicit use of specific prescription stimulants among college students: prevalence, motives, and routes of administration. Pharmacotherapy. 2006;26:1501–1510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sattler S, Forlini C, Racine E, et al. Impact of contextual factors and substance characteristics on perspectives toward cognitive enhancement. PLOS One. 2013;8(8):e71452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vassanelli S. Brain-chip interfaces: the present and the future. Procedia Comput Sci. 2011;7:61–64.
   Google Scholar
• Indiveri G, Barranco BL, Legenstein R, et al. Integration of nanoscale memristor synapses in neuromorphic computing architectures. Nanotechnology. 2013;24(38):1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John V, Kondziolka DS. Device for multicentric brain modulation, repair and interface. U.S. Patent No. 2008/0154331 A1. June 26, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Vassanelli S, Mahmud M, Girardi S, at al. On the way to large-scale and high-resolution brain-chip interfacing. Cogn Comput. 2012;4(1):71–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar