Independent home use of Brain Painting improves quality of life of two artists in the locked-in state diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

References

• Kübler A, Kotchoubey B, Kaiser J, Wolpaw JR, Birbaumer N. Brain-computer communication: unlocking the locked in. Psychological Bull. 2001;127(3):358–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Mattia D, Rupp R, Tangermann M. Facing the challenge: Bringing brain–computer interfaces to end-users. Artif Intell. in Med. 2013;59(2):55–60.10.1016/j.artmed.2013.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Holz EM, Riccio A, et al. The User-Centered Design as Novel Perspective for Evaluating the Usability of BCI-Controlled Applications. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(12):e112392.10.1371/journal.pone.0112392
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zickler C, Riccio A, Leotta F, et al. A Brain-Computer Interface as Input Channel for a Standard Assistive Technology Software. Clin. EEG and Neurosci.. 2011;42(4):236–244.10.1177/155005941104200409
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holz EM, Botrel L, Kaufmann T, Kübler A. Long-Term Independent Brain-Computer Interface Home Use Improves Quality of Life of a Patient in the Locked-In State: A Case Study. Arch. of Phys. Med. and Rehabil. 2015;96:S16–S26.10.1016/j.apmr.2014.03.035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holz EM, Höhne J, Staiger-Sälzer P, Tangermann M, Kübler A. Brain-computer interface controlled gaming: Evaluation of usability by severely motor restricted end-users. Artif. Intell. in Med. 2013;59(2):111–120.10.1016/j.artmed.2013.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riccio A, Holz EM, Aricò P, et al. A hybrid control of a P300-based Brain Computer Interface to improve usability for people with severe motor disability. Arch. of Phys. Med. and Rehabil.. 2015;96:S54–S61.10.1016/j.apmr.2014.05.029
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zickler C, Halder S, Kleih S C, Herbert C, Kübler A. Brain Painting: Usability testing according to the user-centered design in end users with severe motor paralysis. Artif. Intell. in Med. 2013;59(2):99–110.10.1016/j.artmed.2013.08.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijboer F, Sellers EW, Mellinger J, et al. A P300-based brain-computer interface for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2008;119(8):1909–1916.10.1016/j.clinph.2008.03.034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellers EW, Donchin E. A P300-based brain–computer interface: Initial tests by ALS patients. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2006;117(3):538–548.10.1016/j.clinph.2005.06.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellers EW, Ryan DB, Hauser CK. Noninvasive brain-computer interface enables communication after brainstem stroke. Sci. Translational Med. 2014; 6(257): 257re7.
   Google Scholar
• Silvoni S, Cavinato M, Volpato C, Ruf CA, Birbaumer N, Piccione F. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis progression and stability of brain-computer interface communication. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal degeneration. 2013; 14(5–6): 390–6.
   Google Scholar
• Silvoni S, Cavinato M, Volpato C, Ruf A, Birbaumer N, Piccione F. P300-Based Brain-Computer Interface Communication: Evaluation and Follow-up in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Front. in neurosci. 2009;3:60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohm M, Schneiders M, Müller C, et al. Hybrid brain-computer interfaces and hybrid neuroprostheses for restoration of upper limb functions in individuals with high-level spinal cord injury. Artif. Intell. in Med. 2013;59(2):133–142.10.1016/j.artmed.2013.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Nijboer F, Mellinger J, et al. Patients with ALS can use sensorimotor rhythms to operate a brain-computer interface. Neurology. 2005;64(10):1775–1777.10.1212/01.WNL.0000158616.43002.6D
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birbaumer N, Ghanayim N, Hinterberger T, et al. A spelling device for the paralysed. Nature. 1999;398(6725):297–298.10.1038/18581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(2):223–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann N, Kübler A. Training locked-in patients: a challenge for the use of brain-computer interfaces. IEEE Trans. on Neural Syst. and Rehabil. Eng. 2003;11(2):169–172.10.1109/TNSRE.2003.814431
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann N, Kübler A, Kaiser J, Hinterberger T, Birbaumer N. Conscious perception of brain states: mental strategies for brain-computer communication. Neuropsychologia. 2003;41(8):1028–1036.10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00298-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birbaumer N, Kübler A, Ghanayim N, et al. The thought translation device (TTD) for completely paralyzed patients. IEEE Trans. on Rehabil. Eng. 2000;8(2):190–193.10.1109/86.847812
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karim AA, Hinterberger T, Richter J, et al. Neural internet: web surfing with brain potentials for the completely paralyzed. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair. 2006;20(4):508–515.10.1177/1545968306290661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellers EW, Vaughan TM, Wolpaw JR. A brain-computer interface for long-term independent home use. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. 2010;11(5):449–455.10.3109/17482961003777470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellers EW, Arbel Y, Donchin E. BCIs that use P300 event-related Potentials In: Wolpaw JR, Winter Wolpaw E, editors. Brain-computer interfaces: principles and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 215–226.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan, TM, Sellers EW, Wolpaw JR. Clinical evaluation of BCIs. In: Wolpaw JR, Winter Wolpaw E, editors. Brain-computer interfaces: principles and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 325–336.
   Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Holz EM, Sellers EW, Vaughan T. Toward Independent Home Use of BCI: a Decision Algorithm for Selection of Potential End-Users. Arch. of Phys. Med. and Rehabil. 2015;96:S27–S32.10.1016/j.apmr.2014.03.036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picton TW. The P300 Wave of the Human Event-Related Potential. J. of Clin. Neurophysiol. 1992;9(4):456–479.10.1097/00004691-199210000-00002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polich J. Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2007;118(10):2128–2148.10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Münssinger JI, Halder S, Kleih SC, et al. Brain Painting: First Evaluation of a New Brain-Computer Interface Application with ALS-Patients and Healthy Volunteers. Front Neurosci. 2010;4:182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krusienski DJ, Sellers EW, Cabestaing F, et al. A comparison of classification techniques for the P300 Speller. J. of Neural Eng. 2006;3(4):299–305.10.1088/1741-2560/3/4/007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharbrough F, Chatrian G, Lesser R, Lüders H, Nuwer M, Picton T. American Electroencephalographic Society guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. J. clin. Neurophysiol. 1991;8(2):200–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schalk G, McFarland DJ, Hinterberger T, Birbaumer N, Wolpaw JR. BCI2000: A General-Purpose Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) System. IEEE Transactions on Biomed. Eng. 2004;51(6):1034–1043.10.1109/TBME.2004.827072
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolpaw JR, Birbaumer N, McFarland DJ, Pfurtscheller G, Vaughan TM. Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin. Neurophysiol.. 2002;113(6):767–791.10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00057-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Neumann N, Kaiser J, Kotchoubey B, Hinterberger T, Birbaumer NP. Brain-computer communication: Self-regulation of slow cortical potentials for verbal communication. Arch. of Phys. Med. and Rehabil. 2001;82(11):1533–1539.10.1053/apmr.2001.26621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, SG and Staveland LE. In: Hancock PA and Meshkati N, editors. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of experimental and theoretical research, in Human mental workload. North-Holland: Amsterdam; 1988. p. 139–183.
   Google Scholar
• Demers, L, Weiss-Lambrou R, and Ska B. Quebec user Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology. QUEST version 2.0. An outcome measure for assistive technology devices. Institute for Matching Person and Technology. New York, NY: Webster; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer, MJ. The Matching Person & Technology (MPT) Model Manual and Assessments, [CD-ROM]. The Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc.: Webster, NY; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices: the PIADS. Kanadian J. of Rehabil. 1996;9:159–168.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technol. and Disability. 2002;14:107–111.
   Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Neumann N, Wilhelm B, Hinterberger T, Birbaumer N. Predictability of brain–computer communication. Int. J. of psychophysiol. 2004; 18(2/3): 121–129.
   Google Scholar
• Hanagasi HA, Gurvit IH, Ermutlu N, et al. Cognitive impairment in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: evidence from neuropsychological investigation and event-related potentials. Cognitive Brain Res. 2002;14(2):234–244.10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00110-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaufmann T, Schulz SM, Köblitz A, Renner G, Wessig C, Kübler A. Face stimuli effectively prevent brain-computer interface inefficiency in patients with neurodegenerative disease. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2013;124(5):893–900.10.1016/j.clinph.2012.11.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulus KS, Magnano I, Piras MR, et al. Visual and auditory event-related potentials in sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2002;113(6):853–861.10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00082-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinoshita S, Kinoshita S, Inoue M, Maeda H, Nakamura J, Morita K. Long-term patterns of change in ERPs across repeated measurements. Physiol. & Behav.. 1996;60(4):1087–1092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravden D, Polich J. Habituation of P300 from visual stimuli. Int. J. of Psychophysiol. 1998;30(3):359–365.10.1016/S0167-8760(98)00039-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravden D, Polich J. On P300 measurement stability: habituation, intra-trial block variation, and ultradian rhythms. Biol. Psychol. 1999;51(1):59–76.10.1016/S0301-0511(99)00015-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCane LM, Sellers EW, McFarland DJ, et al. Brain-computer interface (BCI) evaluation in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration. 2014;15(3–4):207–215.10.3109/21678421.2013.865750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donchin, E, Miller GA, Farwell LA. The endogenous components of the event-related potential – A diagnostic tool? In: Swaab DF, et al., editors. Aging of the brain and Alzheimer’s disease. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1986. p. 87–102.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufmann T, Schulz SM, Grünzinger C, Kübler A. Flashing characters with famous faces improves ERP-based brain-computer interface performance. J. of Neural Eng. 2011;8(5):056016.10.1088/1741-2560/8/5/056016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botrel L, Reuter P, Holz EM, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 6th International Brain-Computer Interface Conference 2014. The Future of Brain-Computer Interaction: Basics, Shortcomings, Users. Graz University of Technology, Austria; 2014. p. 32–35
   Google Scholar
• Felce D, Perry J. Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Res. in Dev. Disabilities. 1995;16(1):51–74.10.1016/0891-4222(94)00028-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blain-Moraes S, Schaff R, Gruis KL, Huggins JE, Wren PA. Barriers to and mediators of brain-computer interface user acceptance: focus group findings. Ergonomics. 2012;55(5):516–525.10.1080/00140139.2012.661082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Holz E, Botrel L. Addendum. Brain. 2013;136(6):2005–2006.10.1093/brain/awt156
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wolpaw, JR, Winter Wolpaw E. Brain-computer interfaces: something new under the sun. In: Wolpaw JR, Winter Wolpaw E, editors. Brain-computer interfaces: principles and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 3–12.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388855.001.0001
   Google Scholar