Workshops of the seventh international brain-computer interface meeting: not getting lost in translation

References

• Wolpaw JR, Birbaumer N, Heetderks WJ, et al. Brain-computer interface technology: a review of the first international meeting. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 2000;8(2):164–173.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vaughan TM, Heetderks WJ, Trejo LJ, et al. Brain-computer interface technology: a review of the second international meeting. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2003;11(2):94–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaughan TM, Wolpaw JR. The third international meeting on brain-computer interface technology: making a difference. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2006;14(2):126–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaughan TM, Wolpaw JR. Special issue containing contributions from the fourth international brain-computer interface meeting. J Neural Eng. 2011;8(2):020201-2560/8/2/020201. Epub 2011 Mar 24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huggins JE, Guger C, Allison B, et al. Workshops of the fifth international brain-computer interface meeting: defining the future. Brain-Comput Interface J. 2014;1(1):27–49.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huggins JE, Wolpaw JR. Papers from the fifth international brain-computer interface meeting. Preface. J Neural Eng. 2014;11(3):030301-2560/11/3/030301. Epub 2014 May 19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly JJ, Huggins JE. Brain-computer interface: current and emerging rehabilitation applications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(3 Suppl):S1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huggins JE, Guger C, Ziat M, et al. Workshops of the sixth international brain-computer interface meeting: brain-computer interfaces past, present, and future. Brain Comput Interfaces (Abingdon). 2017;4(1–2):3–36.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huggins JE, Müller-Putz G, Wolpaw JR. The sixth international brain-computer interface meeting: advances in basic and clinical research. (in eng). Brain Comput Interfaces (Abingdon). 2017;4(1–2):1–2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hu K, Chen C, Meng Q, et al. Scientific profile of brain-computer interfaces: bibliometric analysis in a 10-year period. (in eng). Neurosci Lett. 2016 Dec;635:61–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karakaş S, Barry RJ. A brief historical perspective on the advent of brain oscillations in the biological and psychological disciplines. (in eng). Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Apr;75:335–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louis EKS, Frey LC, Hopp JL. Electroencephalography (EEG): an Introductory text and atlas of normal and abnormal findings in adults, children, and infants, American epilepsy society; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Nasrollaholhosseini SH, Mercier J, Fischer G, et al. Electrode-electrolyte interface modeling and impedance characterizing of tripolar concentric ring electrode. (in eng). IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019 Feb;66:2897–2905.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathewson KE, Harrison TJL, Kizuk SAD. High and dry? Comparing active dry EEG electrodes to active and passive wet electrodes. Psychophysiology. 2017;54(1):74–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koka K, Besio WG. Improvement of spatial selectivity and decrease of mutual information of tri-polar concentric ring electrodes. (in eng). J Neurosci Methods. 2007 Sep;165(2):216–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Videos - CREmedical. 2019. Available from: https://cremedical.com/videos/
   Google Scholar
• Rogel-Salazar G, Luna-Munguía H, Stevens KE, et al. Transcranial focal electrical stimulation via tripolar concentric ring electrodes does not modify the short- and long-term memory formation in rats evaluated in the novel object recognition test. (in eng). Epilepsy Behav. 2013 Apr;27(1):154–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCane LM, Steele P, Mercier J, et al. Safety of transcranial focal stimulation (TFS) via tripolar concentric ring electrodes (TCREs) in people: initial results. Proceedings of the SfN 2018 Annual Meeting; San Diego; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Alzahrani S. A comparison of tri-polar concentric ring electrodes to disc electrodes for decoding real and imaginary finger movements. Fort Collins (CO): Department of Biomedical Engineering, Colorado State University; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Stanslaski S, Herron J, Chouinard T, et al. A chronically implantable neural coprocessor for investigating the treatment of neurological disorders. (in eng). IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst. 2018 Dec.;12(6):1230–1245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shute JB, Okun MS, Opri E, et al. Thalamocortical network activity enables chronic tic detection in humans with Tourette syndrome. (in eng). Neuroimage Clin. 2016;12:165–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vansteensel MJ, Pels EGM, Bleichner MG, et al. Fully implanted brain-computer interface in a locked-in patient with ALS. (in eng). N Engl J Med. 2016 November;375(21):2060–2066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flesher SN, Collinger JL, Foldes ST, et al. Intracortical microstimulation of human somatosensory cortex. (in eng). Sci Transl Med. 2016 Oct.;8(361):361ra141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss JM, Flesher SN, Franklin R, et al. Artifact-free recordings in human bidirectional brain-computer interfaces. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2019 Feb;16(1):016002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maiolo L, Notargiacomo A, Marrani M, et al. Ultra-flexible microelectrode array nanostructured by FIB: a possible route to lower the device impedance. Microelectron Eng. 2014;121:10–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou A, Santacruz SR, Johnson BC, et al. A wireless and artefact-free 128-channel neuromodulation device for closed-loop stimulation and recording in non-human primates. (in eng). Nat Biomed Eng. 2019 Jan;3(1):15–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zander TO, Brönstrup J, Lorenz R, et al. Towards BCI-based implicit control in human–computer interaction. In: Fairclough SH, Gilleade K, editors. Advances in physiological computing. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2014. p. 67–90.
   Google Scholar
• Zander TO, Kothe C. Towards passive brain-computer interfaces: applying brain-computer interface technology to human-machine systems in general. J Neural Eng. 2011;8(2):025005-2560/8/2/025005. Epub 2011 Mar 24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zander TO, Kothe C, Jatzev S, et al. Enhancing human-computer interaction with input from active and passive brain-computer interfaces. In: Tan DS, Nijholt A, editors. Brain-computer interfaces. London: Springer; 2010. p. 181–199.
   Google Scholar
• Zander TO, Krol LR, Birbaumer NP, et al. Neuroadaptive technology enables implicit cursor control based on medial prefrontal cortex activity. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2016;113(52):14898–14903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zander TO, Krol LR. Team PhyPA: brain-computer interfacing for everyday human-computer interaction. Period Polytech Electr Eng Comput Sci. 2017;61(2):209–216.
   Google Scholar
• Arico P, Borghini G, Di Flumeri G, et al. Passive BCI in operational environments: insights, recent advances, and future trends. (in eng). IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2017 July;64(7):1431–1436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krol LR, Zander TO. Cognitive probing for automated neuroadaptation. The First Biannual Neuroadaptive Technology Conference, Berlin; 2017 July 19–21. p. 22.
   Google Scholar
• Kothe C. Lab streaming layer (LSL) [Online]; 2014 [cited 2015 Oct 26]. Available from: https://github.com/sccn/labstreaminglayer
   Google Scholar
• Zander TO, Andreessen LM, Berg A, et al. Evaluation of a dry EEG system for application of passive brain-computer interfaces in autonomous driving. (in eng). Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zander TO, Lehne M, Ihme K, et al. A dry EEG-system for scientific research and brain-computer interfaces. (in eng). Front Neurosci. 2011;5:53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zander TO, Gaertner M, Kothe C, et al. Combining eye gaze input with a brain–computer interface for touchless human–computer interaction. Intl J Human–Comput Interact. 2010;27(1):38–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krol LR, Freytag SC, Zander TO. Meyendtris: A hands-free, multimodal Tetris clone using eye tracking and passive BCI for intuitive neuroadaptive gaming. Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction;ACM, Glasgow, Scotland; 2017 Nov 13–17. p. 433–437.
   Google Scholar
• Schalk G. A general framework for dynamic cortical function: the function-through-biased-oscillations (FBO) hypothesis. (in eng). Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermes D, Nguyen M, Winawer J. Neuronal synchrony and the relation between the blood-oxygen-level dependent response and the local field potential. (in eng). PLoS Biol. 2017 Jul;15(7):e2001461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrell MJ R. N. S. S. i. E. S. Group. Responsive cortical stimulation for the treatment of medically intractable partial epilepsy. Neurology. 2011;77(13):1295–1304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanslaski S, Afshar P, Cong P, et al. Design and validation of a fully implantable, chronic, closed-loop neuromodulation device with concurrent sensing and stimulation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012;20(4):410–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller KJ, Schalk G, Hermes D, et al. Spontaneous decoding of the timing and content of human object perception from cortical surface recordings reveals complementary information in the event-related potential and broadband spectral change. (in eng). PLoS Comput Biol. 2016 Jan;12(1):e1004660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller KJ, Schalk G, Fetz EE, et al. Cortical activity during motor execution, motor imagery, and imagery-based online feedback. (in eng). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Mar;107(9):4430–4435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller KJ, Hermes D, Honey CJ, et al. Human motor cortical activity is selectively phase-entrained on underlying rhythms. (in eng). PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(9):e1002655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Hemptinne C, Ryapolova-Webb ES, Air EL, et al. Exaggerated phase-amplitude coupling in the primary motor cortex in Parkinson disease. (in eng). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Mar;110(12):4780–4785.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Hemptinne C, Swann NC, Ostrem JL, et al. Therapeutic deep brain stimulation reduces cortical phase-amplitude coupling in Parkinson’s disease. (in eng). Nat Neurosci. 2015 May;18(5):779–786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller KJ, denNijs M, Shenoy P, et al. Real-time functional brain mapping using electrocorticography. (in eng). Neuroimage. 2007 Aug;37(2):504–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller KJ, Abel TJ, Hebb AO, et al. Rapid online language mapping with electrocorticography. (in eng). J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011 May;7(5):482–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogawa H, Kamada K, Kapeller C, et al. Clinical impact and implication of real-time oscillation analysis for language mapping. (in eng). World Neurosurg. 2017 Jan;97:123–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunner P, Ritaccio AL, Lynch TM, et al. A practical procedure for real-time functional mapping of eloquent cortex using electrocorticographic signals in humans. (in eng). Epilepsy Behav. 2009 Jul;15(3):278–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swift JR, Coon WG, Guger C, et al. Passive functional mapping of receptive language areas using electrocorticographic signals. (in eng). Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Dec;129(12):2517–2524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamura Y, Ogawa H, Kapeller C, et al. Passive language mapping combining real-time oscillation analysis with cortico-cortical evoked potentials for awake craniotomy. (in eng). J Neurosurg. 2016 12;125(6):1580–1588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamada K, Ogawa H, Kapeller C, et al. Disconnection of the pathological connectome for multifocal epilepsy surgery. (in eng). J Neurosurg. 2018 Nov;129(5):1182–1194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schalk G, Kapeller C, Guger C, et al. Facephenes and rainbows: causal evidence for functional and anatomical specificity of face and color processing in the human brain. (in eng). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Nov.;114(46):12285–12290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics. 2012;90(3):891–904.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight J. Negative results: null and void. (in eng). Nature. 2003 Apr;422(6932):554–555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayaram V, Barachant A. MOABB: trustworthy algorithm benchmarking for BCIs. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2018 Dec;15(6):066011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lotte F, Bougrain L, Cichocki A, et al. A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain-computer interfaces: a 10 year update. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2018 Jun;15(3):031005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rimbert S, Lindig-León C, Bougrain L. Profiling BCI users based on contralateral activity to improve kinesthetic motor imagery detection. Presented at the 8th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER); 2017 May 25-28; Shanghai (China).
   Google Scholar
• Hammer EM, Halder S, Blankertz B, et al. Psychological predictors of SMR-BCI performance. (in eng). Biol Psychol. 2012 Jan;89(1):80–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeunet C, N’Kaoua B, Lotte F. Advances in user-training for mental-imagery-based BCI control: psychological and cognitive factors and their neural correlates. (in eng). Prog Brain Res. 2016;228:3–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohmann MR, Fomina T, Jayaram V, et al. Case series: slowing alpha rhythm in late-stage ALS patients. (in eng). Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 02;129(2):406–408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fomina T, Weichwald S, Synofzik M, et al. Absence of EEG correlates of self-referential processing depth in ALS. (in eng). PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0180136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindig-León C. Multilabel classification of EEG-based combined motor imageries implemented for the 3D control of a robotic arm [Doctoral dissertation]. Metz, France: Université de Lorraine; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Saavedra C. Wavelet-based semblance methods to enhance single-trial ERP detection [Doctoral Dissertation]. Metz, France: Université de Lorraine; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson D, Cano R, Dhuyvetter K, et al. Mixed results with affective classification of frontal alpha asymmetry and hjorth parameters. Presented at the International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting; 2018 May 21-25; Pacific Grove (CA); 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Perdikis S, Tonin L, Saeedi S, et al. The cybathlon BCI race: successful longitudinal mutual learning with two tetraplegic users. PLoS Biol. 2018 May;16(5):e2003787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saeedi S, Chavarriaga R, Leeb R, et al. Adaptive assistance for brain-computer interfaces by online prediction of command reliability. IEEE Comput Intel Mag. 2016;11(1):32–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saeedi S, Chavarriaga R, Millan JDR. Long-term stable control of motor-imagery BCI by a locked-in user through adaptive assistance. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017 Apr;25(4):380–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeunet C, Debener S, Lotte F, et al. Mind the traps! Design guidelines for rigorous BCI experiments. In: Nam CS, Nijholt A, Lotte F, editors. Handbook of brain–computer interfaces: technological and theoretical advances. Boca Raton, London, New York: CRC Press; 2018. p. 639–660.
   Google Scholar
• Speier W, Arnold C, Pouratian N. Integrating language models into classifiers for BCI communication: a review. J Neural Eng. 2016 06;13(3):031002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higginbotham DJ, Lesher GW, Moulton BJ, et al. The application of natural language processing to augmentative and alternative communication. Assistive Technol. 2012;24:14–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon C. Prediction and entropy of printed English. Bell Syst Tech J. 1951;30:51–64.
   Google Scholar
• Roark B, Fried-Oken M, Gibbons C. Huffman and linear scanning methods with statistical language models. (in eng). Augment Altern Commun. 2015 Mar;31(1):37–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudy S, Bedrick S. Compositional language modeling for icon-based augmentative and alternative communication. Presented at the Workshop on Deep Learning Approaches for Low-Resource NLP; 2018 Jul 19; Melbourne, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler A, Partridge K, Chelba C, et al. Effects of language modeling and its personalization on touchscreen typing performance. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2015); ACM, New York, NY; 2015. p. 649–658.
   Google Scholar
• Levit M, Stolcke A, Subba R, et al. Personalization of word-phrase-entity language models. Presented at the Interspeech 2015 Sep 6–10; Dresden, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Bellegarda JR. Statistical language model adaptation: review and perspectives. Speech Commun. 2004;42(1):93–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baase S, Henry T. A gift of fire: social, legal, and ethical issues for computing technology. 5th; 2018. p. xviii, 536. ISBN: 978-0134615271.
   Google Scholar
• Kindermans PJ, Schreuder M, Schrauwen B, et al. True zero-training brain-computer interfacing–an online study. PloS One. 2014;9(7):e102504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubner D, Verhoeven T, Schmid K, et al. Learning from label proportions in brain-computer interfaces: online unsupervised learning with guarantees. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hübner D, Verhoeven T, Müller K-R, et al. Unsupervised learning for brain-computer interfaces based on event-related potentials: review and online comparison [research frontier]. IEEE Comput Intel Mag. 2018;13(2):66–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iturrate I, Grizou J, Omedes J, et al. Exploiting task constraints for self-calibrated brain-machine interface control using error-related potentials. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guger C, Spataro R, Allison BZ, et al. Complete locked-in and locked-in patients: command following assessment and communication with vibro-tactile P300 and motor imagery brain-computer interface tools. (in eng). Front Neurosci. 2017;11:251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guger C, Spataro R, Pellas F, et al. Assessing command-following and communication with vibro-tactile P300 brain-computer interface tools in patients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome. (in eng). Front Neurosci. 2018;12:423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spataro R, Heilinger A, Allison B, et al. Preserved somatosensory discrimination predicts consciousness recovery in unresponsive wakefulness syndrome. (in eng). Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Jun;129(6):1130–1136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle D, Stow J, McCreadie K, et al. Motor imagery BCI with auditory feedback as a mechanism for assessment and communication in disorders of consciousness. In Guger C, Allison B, Ushiba J, editors. Brain-computer interface research. 2017; Springer, Cham: Briefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering. p. 51–69.
   Google Scholar
• Coyle D, Dayan N, Stow J, et al. Answering questions in prolonged disorders of consciousness with a brain-computer interface. Presented at the 7th International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting; Pacific Grove (CA); 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Schettini F, Risetti M, Arico P, et al. P300 latency Jitter occurrence in patients with disorders of consciousness: toward a better design for brain computer interface applications. Conference proceedings: Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Milano, Italy, Vol. 2015; 2015. p. 6178–6181.
   Google Scholar
• Riccio A, Schettini F, Simione L, et al. On the relationship between attention processing and p300-based brain computer interface control in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. (in eng). Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12:165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatelle C, Spencer CA, Cash SS, et al. Feasibility of an EEG-based brain-computer interface in the intensive care unit. (in eng). Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Aug;129(8):1519–1525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray S, Crone NE, Niebur E, et al. Neural correlates of high-gamma oscillations (60-200 Hz) in macaque local field potentials and their potential implications in electrocorticography. (in eng). J Neurosci. 2008 Nov;28(45):11526–11536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crone NE, Hao L, Hart J, et al. Electrocorticographic gamma activity during word production in spoken and sign language. (in eng). Neurology. 2001 Dec;57(11):2045–2053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakrabarti S, Sandberg HM, Brumberg JS, et al. Progress in speech decoding from the electrocorticogram. Biomed Eng Lett. 2015;5(1):10–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herff C, Schultz T. Automatic speech recognition from neural signals: a focused review. Front Neurosci. 2016;10:429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz T, Wand M, Hueber T, et al. Biosignal-based spoken communication: A survey. IEEE/ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process. 2017;25(12):2257–2271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lotte F, Brumberg JS, Brunner P, et al. Electrocorticographic representations of segmental features in continuous speech. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brumberg JS, Krusienski DJ, Chakrabarti S, et al. Spatio-temporal progression of cortical activity related to continuous overt and covert speech production in a reading task. (in eng). PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0166872.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouchard KE, Conant DF, Anumanchipalli GK, et al. High-resolution, non-invasive imaging of upper vocal tract articulators compatible with human brain recordings. PloS One. 2016;11(3):e0151327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chartier J, Anumanchipalli GK, Johnson K, et al. Encoding of articulatory kinematic trajectories in human speech sensorimotor cortex. (in eng). Neuron. 2018 Jun;98(5):1042–1054.e4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabre D, Hueber T, Girin L, et al. Automatic animation of an articulatory tongue model from ultrasound images of the vocal tract. Speech Commun. 2017;93:63–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bocquelet F, Hueber T, Girin L, et al. Key considerations in designing a speech brain-computer interface. (in eng). J Physiol Paris. 2016 Nov.;110(4 Pt A):392–401.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mugler EM, Patton JL, Flint RD, et al. Direct classification of all American English phonemes using signals from functional speech motor cortex. J Neural Eng. 2014;11(3):035015-2560/11/3/035015. Epub 2014 May 19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salari E, Freudenburg ZV, Vansteensel MJ, et al. Repeated vowel production affects features of neural activity in sensorimotor cortex. Brain Topogr. 2019 01;32(1):97–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salari E, Freudenburg ZV, Vansteensel MJ, et al. The influence of prior pronunciations on sensorimotor cortex activity patterns during vowel production. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2018 Dec;15(6):066025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herff C, Heger D, de Pesters A, et al. Brain-to-text: decoding spoken phrases from phone representations in the brain. Front Neurosci. 2015;9:217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herff C, Johnson G, Diener L, et al., Towards direct speech synthesis from ECoG: A pilot study. (in eng). Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2016 08;2016:1540–1543.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Angrick M, Herff C, Mugler E, et al. Speech synthesis from ECoG using densely connected 3D convolutional neural networks. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2019 Mar;16(3):036019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glanz Iljina O, Derix J, Kaur R, et al. Real-life speech production and perception have a shared premotor-cortical substrate. (in eng). Sci Rep. 2018 Jun;8(1):8898.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schirrmeister RT, Springenberg JT, Fiederer LDJ, et al. Deep learning with convolutional neural networks for EEG decoding and visualization. (in eng). Hum Brain Mapp. 2017 Nov.;38(11):5391–5420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan JA, Power AJ, Mesgarani N, et al. Attentional selection in a cocktail party environment can be decoded from single-trial EEG. Cerebral Cortex (New York, NY: 1991). 2015;25(7):1697–1706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan J, Chen Z, Herrero J, et al. Neural decoding of attentional selection in multi-speaker environments without access to clean sources. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2017 Oct.;14(5):056001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riès SK, Dhillon RK, Clarke A, et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of word retrieval in speech production revealed by cortical high-frequency band activity. (in eng). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 06;114(23):E4530–E4538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels J, Andreasen D, Ehirim P, et al. Neurotrophic electrode: method of assembly and implantation into human motor speech cortex. (in eng). J Neurosci Methods. 2008 Sep;174(2):168–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guenther FH, Brumberg JS, Wright EJ, et al. A wireless brain-machine interface for real-time speech synthesis. (in eng). PLoS One. 2009 Dec;4(12):e8218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brumberg JS, Wright EJ, Andreasen DS, et al. Classification of intended phoneme production from chronic intracortical microelectrode recordings in speech-motor cortex. (in eng). Front Neurosci. 2011;5:65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum P, Paneth N, Leviton A, et al. A report: the definition and classification of cerebral palsy April 2006. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl. 2007;109:8–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parkes J, Hill N, Platt MJ, et al. Oromotor dysfunction and communication impairments in children with cerebral palsy: a register study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52(12):1113–1119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunbar M, Kirton A. Perinatal stroke: mechanisms, management, and outcomes of early cerebrovascular brain injury. (in eng). Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Sep;2(9):666–676.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cho W, Heilinger A, Xu R, et al. Hemiparetic stroke rehabilitation using avatar and electrical stimulation based on non-invasive brain computer interface. Int J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;5(4):411–415.
   Google Scholar
• Irimia DC, Ortner R, Poboroniuc M, et al. High classification accuracy of a motor imagery based brain-computer interface for stroke rehabilitation training. Front Rob AI. 2018;5:130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biasiucci A, Leeb R, Iturrate I, et al. Brain-actuated functional electrical stimulation elicits lasting arm motor recovery after stroke. (in eng). Nat Commun. 2018 06;9(1):2421.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Young BM, Stamm JM, Song J, et al. Brain-computer interface training after stroke affects patterns of brain-behavior relationships in corticospinal motor fibers. (in eng). Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zickler C, Di Donna V, Kaiser V, et al. BCI applications for people with disabilities: defining user needs and user requirements. AAATE. 2009;25:185–189.
   Google Scholar
• Müller-Putz GR, Ofner P, Schwarz A, et al. MoreGrasp: restoration of upper limb function in individuals with high spinal cord injury by multmodal neuroprostheses fpr interaction in daily activities. Presented at the 7th Graz Brain-Computer Interface Conference; Graz (Austria); 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Müller-Putz GR, Scherer R, Pfurtscheller G, et al. EEG-based neuroprosthesis control: a step towards clinical practice. (in eng). Neurosci Lett. 2005 Jul 1-8;382(1–2):169–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfurtscheller G, Graimann B, Huggins J, et al. Spatiotemporal patterns of beta desynchronization and gamma synchronization in corticographic data during self-paced movement. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003 JUL;114(7):1226–1236.
   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 Med. 2013 Oct;59(2):133–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osuagwu BC, Wallace L, Fraser M, et al. Rehabilitation of hand in subacute tetraplegic patients based on brain computer interface and functional electrical stimulation: a randomised pilot study. J Neural Eng. 2016 Dec;13(6):065002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira J, Ofner P, Schwarz A, et al., EEG neural correlates of goal-directed movement intention. (in eng). Neuroimage. 2017 04;149:129–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira J, Sburlea AI, Müller-Putz GR. EEG patterns of self-paced movement imaginations towards externally-cued and internally-selected targets. (in eng). Sci Rep. 2018 Sep;8(1):13394.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kobler RJ, Sburlea AI, Müller-Putz GR. Tuning characteristics of low-frequency EEG to positions and velocities in visuomotor and oculomotor tracking tasks. (in eng). Sci Rep. 2018 Dec;8(1):17713.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sburlea AI, Müller-Putz GR. Exploring representations of human grasping in neural, muscle and kinematic signals. (in eng). Sci Rep. 2018 Nov;8(1):16669.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lopes Dias C, Sburlea AI, Müller-Putz GR. Masked and unmasked error-related potentials during continuous control and feedback. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2018 Jun;15(3):036031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogue R. Robotic exoskeletons: a review of recent progress. Ind Rob. 2015;42:5–10. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He Y, Eguren D, Azorín JM, et al. Brain-machine interfaces for controlling lower-limb powered robotic systems. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2018 Apr;15(2):021004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millan JD, Rupp R, Müller-Putz GR, et al. Combining brain-computer interfaces and assistive technologies: state-of-the-art and challenges. Front Neurosci. 2010;4. DOI:10.3389/fnins.2010.00161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee K, Liu D, Perroud L, et al. A brain-controlled exoskeleton with cascaded event-related desynchronization classifiers. Rob Auton Syst. 2017;90:15–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contreras-Vidal JL, Kilicarslan A, Huang HH, et al. Human-centered design of wearable neuroprostheses and exoskeletons. AI Mag. 2015;36:12–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu D, Chen W, Lee K, et al. Brain-actuated gait trainer with visual and proprioceptive feedback. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2017 Oct.;14(5):056017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Do AH, Wang PT, King CE, et al. Brain-computer interface controlled robotic gait orthosis. (in eng). J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 Dec;10:111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Cossio E, Severens M, Nienhuis B, et al. Decoding sensorimotor rhythms during robotic-assisted treadmill walking for Brain Computer Interface (BCI) applications. (in eng). PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0137910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Prasad S, Kilicarslan A, et al. Multiple Kernel based region importance learning for neural classification of gait states from EEG signals. (in eng). Front Neurosci. 2017;11:170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilicarslan A, Prasad S, Grossman RG, et al. High accuracy decoding of user intentions using EEG to control a lower-body exoskeleton. (in eng). Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:5606–5609.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• He Y, Nathan K, Venkatakrishnan A, et al. An integrated neuro-robotic interface for stroke rehabilitation using the NASA X1 powered lower limb exoskeleton. (in eng). Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:3985–3988.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kwak NS, Müller KR, Lee SW. A lower limb exoskeleton control system based on steady state visual evoked potentials. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2015 Oct;12(5):056009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belda-Lois JM, Mena-del Horno S, Bermejo-Bosch I, et al. Rehabilitation of gait after stroke: a review towards a top-down approach. (in eng). J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Dec;8:66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pons JL. Rehabilitation exoskeletal robotics. The promise of an emerging field. (in eng). IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2010 May-Jun;29(3):57–63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Do AH, Wang PT, King CE, et al. Brain-computer interface controlled functional electrical stimulation system for ankle movement. (in eng). J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Aug;8:49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu R, Jiang N, Mrachacz-Kersting N, et al. A closed-loop brain-computer interface triggering an active ankle-foot orthosis for inducing cortical neural plasticity. (in eng). IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014 Jul;61(7):2092–2101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donati AR, Shokur S, Morya E, et al. Long-term training with a brain-machine interface-based gait protocol induces partial neurological recovery in paraplegic patients. (in eng). Sci Rep. 2016 08;6:30383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collinger JL, Wodlinger B, Downey JE, et al. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. (in eng). Lancet. 2013 Feb;381(9866):557–564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wodlinger B, Downey JE, Tyler-Kabara EC, et al. Ten-dimensional anthropomorphic arm control in a human brain-machine interface: difficulties, solutions, and limitations. J Neural Eng. 2015;12(1):016011-2560/12/1/016011. Epub 2014 Dec 16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochberg LR, Bacher D, Jarosiewicz B, et al. Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature. 2012;485(7398):372–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouton CE, Shaikhouni A, Annetta NV, et al. Restoring cortical control of functional movement in a human with quadriplegia. (in eng). Nature. 2016 05;533(7602):247–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajiboye AB, Willett FR, Young DR, et al. Restoration of reaching and grasping movements through brain-controlled muscle stimulation in a person with tetraplegia: a proof-of-concept demonstration. (in eng). Lancet. 2017 05;389(10081):1821–1830.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colachis SC, Bockbrader MA, Zhang M, et al. Dexterous control of seven functional hand movements using cortically-controlled transcutaneous muscle stimulation in a person with tetraplegia. (in eng). Front Neurosci. 2018;12:208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bensmaia SJ, Miller LE. Restoring sensorimotor function through intracortical interfaces: progress and looming challenges. (in eng). Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014 May;15(5):313–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collinger J, Gaunt R, Schwartz A. Progress towards restoring upper limb movement and sensation through intracortical brain-computer interfaces. Curr Opin Biomed Eng. 2018;8:84–92.
   Google Scholar
• Schiefer MA, Graczyk EL, Sidik SM, et al. Artificial tactile and proprioceptive feedback improves performance and confidence on object identification tasks. (in eng). PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0207659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graczyk EL, Resnik L, Schiefer MA, et al. Home use of a neural-connected sensory prosthesis provides the functional and psychosocial experience of having a hand again. (in eng). Sci Rep. 2018 Jun;8(1):9866.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tan DW, Schiefer MA, Keith MW, et al. A neural interface provides long-term stable natural touch perception. (in eng). Sci Transl Med. 2014 Oct;6(257):257ra138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis TS, Wark HAC, Hutchinson DT, et al. Restoring motor control and sensory feedback in people with upper extremity amputations using arrays of 96 microelectrodes implanted in the median and ulnar nerves. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2016 06;13(3):036001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valle G, Mazzoni A, Iberite F, et al. Biomimetic intraneural sensory feedback enhances sensation naturalness, tactile sensitivity, and manual dexterity in a bidirectional prosthesis. (in eng). Neuron. 2018 Oct;100(1):37–45.e7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saal HP, Bensmaia SJ. Touch is a team effort: interplay of submodalities in cutaneous sensibility. (in eng). Trends Neurosci. 2014 Dec;37(12):689–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins KL, Guterstam A, Cronin J, et al. Ownership of an artificial limb induced by electrical brain stimulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 01;114(1):166–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armenta Salas M, Bashford L, Kellis S, et al. Proprioceptive and cutaneous sensations in humans elicited by intracortical microstimulation. (in eng). Elife. 2018;7:e32904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flesher S, Collinger JL, Foldes ST, et al. Intracortical microstimulation as a feedback source for brain-computer interface users. 6th International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting; Pacific Grove (CA), 2016, no. Conference Proceedings; 2016. p. 138.
   Google Scholar
• Delhaye BP, Long KH, Bensmaia SJ. Neural basis of touch and proprioception in primate cortex. Compr Physiol. 2018 09;8(4):1575–1602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bensmaia SJ. Biological and bionic hands: natural neural coding and artificial perception. (in eng). Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Sep;370(1677):20140209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• London BM, Jordan LR, Jackson CR, et al. Electrical stimulation of the proprioceptive cortex (area 3a) used to instruct a behaving monkey. (in eng). IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2008 Feb;16(1):32–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milgram P, Colquhoun H. A taxonomy of real and virtual world display integration. Mixed Reality. 1999;1:1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Putze F, Scherer M, Schultz T. Starring into the void? classifying internal vs. External Attention from {EEG}. Presented at the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Gothenburg, Sweden; 2016 Oct 23–27.
   Google Scholar
• Putze F, Herff C, Tremmel C, et al.. Decoding mental workload in virtual environments: a fNIRS study using an immersive n-back task. Presented at the 41st Engineering Medicine and Biology Conference. Berlin (Germany); 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Mladenović J, Frey J, Bonnet-Save M et al. The impact of flow in an EEG-based brain computer interface. Presented at the 7th International BCI Conference; Graz (Austria); 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Faller J, Saproo S, Shih V, et al. Closed-loop regulation of user state during a boundary avoidance task. Presented at the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Budapest, Hungary; 2016 Oct 9–12.
   Google Scholar
• Si-Mohammed H, Argelaguet F, Casiez G, et al. Brain-computer interfaces and augmented reality: a state of the art. Presented at the 7th International BCI Conference; Graz (Austria); 2017. [Online]. Available: https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01625167
   Google Scholar
• Tremmel C, Herff C, Krusienski D. EEG movement artifact suppression in interactive virtual reality. Presented at the 41st Engineering Medicine and Biology Conference; Berlin (Germany); 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Vourvopoulos A, Ferreira A, I Badia SB. NeuRow: an immersive VR environment for motor-imagery training with the use of brain-computer interfaces and vibrotactile feedback. Presented at the 3rd International Conference on Physiological Computing Systems; Lisbon (Portugal); 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Mullen T, Kothe C. NeuroPype. [Online]. Intheon, San Diego, CA; 2018. Available from: https://www.neuropype.io/
   Google Scholar
• King JL. Art therapy, trauma, and neuroscience: theoretical and practical perspectives. New York, London: Routledge; 2016. p. 234.
   Google Scholar
• Zickler C, Halder S, Kleih SC, et al. Brain painting: usability testing according to the user-centered design in end users with severe motor paralysis. Artif Intell Med. 2013;59(2):99–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leslie G. 2015 [cited 2019 Apr 5]. Available from: http://www.graceleslie.com/
   Google Scholar
• Makeig S, Leslie G, Mullen T, et al. First demonstration of a musical emotion BCI. In: editors, D’Mello S, Graesser A, Schuller B, et al. Affective computing and intelligent interaction. ACII 2011. Lecture notes in computer science. Vol. 6975. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 487–496.
   Google Scholar
• Mullen T, Khalil A, Ward T, et al. MindMusic: playful and social installations at the interface between music and the brain. In: Nijholt A editor. More playful user interfaces. Interfaces that invite social and physical interaction. gaming media and social effects series. Singapore: Springer; 2015. p. 197–229.
   Google Scholar
• Tan DS, Nijholt A. Brain-computer interfaces: applying our minds to human- computer interaction (Human-computer interaction series). London: Springer-Verlag; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Todd DA, McCullagh PJ, Mulvenna MD, et al.. Investigating the use of brain-computer interaction to facilitate creativity. Presented at the 3rd Augmented Human International Conference, Megève, France; 2012 Mar 08–09.
   Google Scholar
• Morone G, Pisotta I, Pichiorri F, et al. Proof of principle of a brain-computer interface approach to support poststroke arm rehabilitation in hospitalized patients: design, acceptability, and usability. (in eng). Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Mar;96(3):S71–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhindsa K, Carcone D, Becker S. Toward an open-ended BCI: a user-centered coadaptive design. (in eng). Neural Comput. 2017 Oct.;29(10):2742–2768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller-Putz G, Leeb R, Tangermann M, et al. Towards non-invasive hybrid brain-computer interfaces: framework, practice, clinical application and beyond. Proc IEEE. 2015;103(6):926–943.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson CW, Besio AS. Comparison of conventional and tripolar EEG electrodes in BCI paradigms. Presented at the Seventh International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting Pacific Grove; California (USA); 2018. [Online]. Available: http://bcisociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/BCI2018AbstractBook.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Besio WG, Stanslaski S, Herron J, et al. High-frequency oscillations recorded on the scalp of patients with epilepsy using tripolar concentric ring electrodes. (in eng). IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2014;2:2000111.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scott SM, Gehrke L. Neurofeedback during creative expression as a therapeutic tool. In: Contreras-Vidal JL, Robleto D, Cruz-Garza JG, et al., editors. Mobile brain–body imaging and the neuroscience of art, innovation and creativity. Bio- and Neurosystems, Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2019. p. 161–166.
   Google Scholar
• Scott SM, Raftery C, Anderson C. Advancing the rehabilitative and therapeutic potentials of BCI and noninvasive systems. In: Nijholt A, editor. Brain art: brain-computer interfaces for artistic expression. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 327–354.
   Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Holz E, Sellers EW, et al. Toward independent home use of BCI: a decision algorithm for selection of potential end-users. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2014:96(3 Suppl):S27–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijholt A. Competing and collaborating brains: multi-brain computer interfacing. In: Hassanieu AE, Azar AT, editors. Brain-computer interfaces: current trends and applications. intelligent systems reference library series. Vol. 74. Berlin: Springer; 2015. p. 313–335.
   Google Scholar
• Valeriani D, Matran-Fernandez A. Past and future of multi-mind brain-computer interfaces. In: Nam C, Nijholt A, Lotte F, editors. Brain-computer interfaces handbook: technological and theoretical advances. Oxford (UK): CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2018. p. 685–700.
   Google Scholar
• Nijholt A. Brain art. Brain-computer interfaces and artistic expression (Human-computer interaction series). London (UK): Springer; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Babiloni F, Astolfi L. Social neuroscience and hyperscanning techniques: past, present and future. (in eng). Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Jul;44:76–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens RH, Galloway TL, Wang P, et al. Cognitive neurophysiologic synchronies: what can they contribute to the study of teamwork? (in eng). Hum Factors. 2012 Aug;54(4):489–502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone B, Skinner A, Stikic M, et al. Assessing neural synchrony in tutoring dyads. In: Schmorrow D, Fidopiastis C, editors. Advancing human performance and decision-making through adaptive systems. Vol. 8534. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Foundations of Augmented Cognition, Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2014. p. 167–178.
   Google Scholar
• Berka C, Stikic M. On the road to autonomy: evaluating and optimizing hybrid team dynamics. In: Autonomy and artificial intelligence: a threat or savior? Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. p. 245–262.
   Google Scholar
• Poli R, Valeriani D, Cinel C. Collaborative brain-computer interface for aiding decision-making. (in eng). PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e102693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valeriani D, Poli R, Cinel C. Enhancement of group perception via a collaborative brain-computer interface. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2017 06;64(6):1238–1248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonnet L, Lotte F, Lécuyer A. Two brains, one game: design and evaluation of a multi-user BCI video game based on motor imagery. IEEE Trans Comput Intell AI Games (IEEE T-CIAIG). 2013;5(2):185–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu L, Lotte F, Cui G, et al. Neural mechanisms of social emotion perception: an EEG hyper-scanning study. Presented at the Cyberworlds; New York; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer AM, Hogervorst M, Reuderink B, et al. Physiological signals distinguish between reading emotional and non-emotional sections in a novel. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2015;2(2–3):76–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Erp J, Hogervorst M, Van der Werf Y. Toward physiological indices of emotional state driving future ebook interactivity. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2016;2:e60.
   Google Scholar
• P. s. C. f. t. S. o. B. Issues, integrative approaches for neuroscience, ethics, and society (Gray matters). Washington (DC); 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Glannon W. Stimulating brains, altering minds. (in eng). J Med Ethics. 2009 May;35(5):289–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farah MJ. An ethics toolbox for neurotechnology. (in eng). Neuron. 2015 Apr;86(1):34–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. s. C. f. t. S. o. B. Issues, topics at the intersection of neuroscience, ethics, and society (Gray matters). 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Nijboer F. Technology transfer of brain-computer interfaces as assistive technology: barriers and opportunities. (in eng). Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015 Feb;58(1):35–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suryotrisongko H, Samopa F. Evaluating OpenBCI spiderclaw V1 headwear’s electrodes placements for Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) motor imagery application. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015;72:398–405.
   Google Scholar
• Spicer R, Anglin J, Krum DM, et al. Reinvent: a low-cost, virtual reality brain-computer interface for severe stroke upper limb motor recovery. Presented at the Virtual Reality (VR), Los Angeles, CA; 2017 Mar 18–22.
   Google Scholar
• Samson VRR, Kitti BP, Kumar SP, et al. Electroencephalogram-based open BCI devices for disabled people. Presented at the 2nd International Conference on Micro-Electronics, Electromagnetics and Telecommunications; Singapore; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Hohmann MR, Hackl M, Writh B, et al. MYND: a platform for large-scale neuroscientific studies. In: CHI’19 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. Glasgow (UK):ACM; 2019
   Google Scholar
• Bergman E, Johnson E. Towards accessible human-computer interaction. Adv Hum Comput Interact. 1995;5(1):87–114.
   Google Scholar
• Boven L, Jiang QL, Moss HE. Diffuse colour discrimination as marker of afferent visual system dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. (in eng). Neuroophthalmology. 2017 Dec;41(6):310–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne S, Pradhan F, Ni Dhubhghaill S, et al. Blink rate in ALS. (in eng). Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2013 May;14(4):291–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brumberg JS, Nguyen A, Pitt KM, et al. Examining sensory ability, feature matching and assessment-based adaptation for a brain-computer interface using the steady-state visually evoked potential. (in eng). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018 Jan;14(3):241–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen SHK, O’Leary M. Eye gaze 101: what speech-language pathologists should know about selecting eye gaze augmentative and alternative communication systems. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2018;3(12):24–32.
   Google Scholar
• Graber M, Challe G, Alexandre MF, et al. Evaluation of the visual function of patients with locked-in syndrome: report of 13 cases. (in eng). J Fr Ophtalmol. 2016 May;39(5):437–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss HE, McCluskey L, Elman L, et al. Cross-sectional evaluation of clinical neuro-ophthalmic abnormalities in an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis population. (in eng). J Neurol Sci. 2012 Mar;314(1–2):97–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speier W, Deshpande A, Cui L, et al. A comparison of stimulus types in online classification of the P300 speller using language models. (in eng). PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalika D, Collins L, Caves K, et al. Fusion of P300 and eye-tracker data for spelling using BCI2000. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2017 Oct.;14(5):056010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higger M, Quivira F, Akcakaya M, et al. Recursive bayesian coding for BCIs. (in eng). IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017 06;25(6):704–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters B, Higger M, Quivira F, et al. Effects of simulated visual acuity and ocular motility impairments on SSVEP brain-computer interface performance: an experiment with Shuffle Speller. (in eng). Brain Comput Interfaces (Abingdon). 2018;5(2–3):58–72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nezamfar H, Mohseni Salehi SS, Higger M, et al. Code-VEP vs. Eye tracking: a comparison study. (in eng). Brain Sci. 2018 Jul;8(7):130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aflalo T, Kellis S, Klaes C, et al. Neurophysiology. Decoding motor imagery from the posterior parietal cortex of a tetraplegic human. Science. 2015;348(6237):906–910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King CE, Wang PT, McCrimmon CM, et al. The feasibility of a brain-computer interface functional electrical stimulation system for the restoration of overground walking after paraplegia. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12: 80-015-0068-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrimmon CM, King CE, Wang PT, et al. Brain-controlled functional electrical stimulation therapy for gait rehabilitation after stroke: a safety study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12: 57-015-0050-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson KD. Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. J Neurotrauma. 2004;21(10):1371–1383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran T, Wang PT, Lee B, et al. Electrocorticographic activity of the brain during micturition. Presented at the 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Honolulu, Hawaii; 2018 July 17–21.
   Google Scholar
• Chaudhary U, Xia B, Silvoni S, et al. Brain-computer interface-based communication in the completely locked-in state. PLoS Biol. 2017 01;15(1):e1002593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pels EGM, Aarnoutse EJ, Ramsey NF, et al. Estimated prevalence of the target population for brain-computer interface neurotechnology in the Netherlands. (in eng). Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Jul;31(7):677–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill K, Kovacs T, Shin S. Critical issues using brain-computer interfaces for augmentative and alternative communication. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(3 Suppl):S8–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blain-Moraes S, Schaff R, Gruis KL, et al. Barriers to and mediators of brain-computer interface user acceptance: focus group findings. Ergonomics. 2012;55(5):516–525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huggins JE, Moinuddin AA, Chiodo AE, et al. What would brain-computer interface users want: opinions and priorities of potential users with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(3 Suppl):S38-45.e1-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huggins JE, Wren PA, Gruis KL. What would brain-computer interface users want? Opinions and priorities of potential users with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotroph Lateral Scler. 2011;12(5):318–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munssinger 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
• Holz EM, Botrel L, Kaufmann T, et al. Long-term independent brain-computer interface home use improves quality of life of a patient in the locked-in state: a case study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(3 Suppl):S16–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Boom M, Vermaas M, Aarnoutse E, et al. Utrecht neuroprosthesis: from brain signal to independent control. Presented at the 7th Graz Brain-Computer Interface Conference; Graz (Austria); 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Leinders S, Pelas E, Vansteensel M, et al. Using a one-dimensional control signal for two different output commands in an implanted BCI. Presented at the 7th Graz Brain-Computer Interface Conference; Graz (Austria); 2017.
   Google Scholar
• DiGiovine CP, Donahue M, Bahr P, et al. Rehabilitation engineers, technologists, and technicians: vital members of the assistive technology team. (in eng). Assist Technol. 2018 Jun;1–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Allison BZ. Toward ubiquitous BCIs. In: Graimann B, Pfurtscheller G, Allison B, editors. Brain-computer interfaces. Berlin: Springer; 2009. p. 357–387.
   Google Scholar
• Allison BZ, Dunne S, Leeb R, et al. Recent and upcoming BCI progress: overview, analysis, and recommendations. In: Allison B, Dunne S, Leeb R, Del R, Millán J, Nijholt A, editors. Towards practical brain-computer interfaces. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Brunner C, Birbaumer N, Blankertz B, et al. BNCI Horizon 2020: towards a roadmap for the BCI community. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2015;2(1):1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam CS, Nijholt A, Lotte F. Brain–computer interfaces handbook: technological and theoretical advances. London, New York: CRC Press; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Jin J, Zhang H, Daly I, et al. An improved P300 pattern in BCI to catch user’s attention. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2017 July.;14(3):036001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin J, Allison BZ, Brunner C, et al. P300 Chinese input system based on Bayesian LDA. (in eng). Biomed Tech (Berl). 2010 Feb;55(1):5–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang M, Jin J, Zhang Y, et al. Usage of drip drops as stimuli in an auditory P300 BCI paradigm. Cogn Neurodyn. 2017;12(1):85–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng J, Jin J, Daly I, et al. Effect of a combination of flip and zooming stimuli on the performance of a visual brain-computer interface for spelling. Biomed Eng/Biomed Tech. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Vujic A, Starner T, Jackson M. “MoodLens: towards improving nonverbal emotional expression with an in-lens fiber optic display. Presented at the 2016 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Heidelberg, Germany; 2017; 2016 Sep 12–16.
   Google Scholar
• Vujic A, Starner T, Jackson M. Towards gut-brain computer interfacing: gastric myoelectric activity as an index of subcortical phenomena. Presented at the 3rd International Mobile Brain/Body Imaging Conference, Berlin, Germany; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Guger C, Krausz G, Allison BZ, et al. Comparison of dry and gel based electrodes for p300 brain-computer interfaces. Front Neurosci. 2012;6:60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guger C, Allison BZ, Lebedev MA. Recent advances in brain-computer interface research—a summary of the BCI award 2016 and BCI research trends. In: Guger C, Allison B, Lebedev M, editors. Brain-computer interface research. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 127–134.
   Google Scholar
• Neurotechnologies for Brain-Machine Interfacing. 2019 [cited 2019 Jan 18]. [Online]. Available from: https://standards.ieee.org/industry-connections/neurotechnologies-for-brain-machine-interfacing.html
   Google Scholar
• Bigdely-Shamlo N, Cockfield J, Makeig S, et al. Hierarchical Event Descriptors (HED): semi-structured tagging for real-world events in large-scale EEG. (in eng). Front Neuroinform. 2016;10:42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contreras-Vidal JL, Bhagat AN, Brantley J, et al. Powered exoskeletons for bipedal locomotion after spinal cord injury. (in eng). J Neural Eng. 2016 06;13(3):031001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He Y, Eguren D, Luu TP, et al. Risk management and regulations for lower limb medical exoskeletons: a review. (in eng). Med Devices (Auckl). 2017;10:89–107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Quitadamo LR, Marciani MG, Cardarilli GC, et al. Describing different brain computer interface systems through a unique model: a UML implementation. (in eng). Neuroinformatics. 2008;6(2):81–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianchi L, Quitadamo LR, Garreffa G, et al. Performances evaluation and optimization of brain computer interface systems in a copy spelling task. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007;15(2):207–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason SG, Jackson MM, Birch GE. A general framework for characterizing studies of brain interface technology. (in eng). Ann Biomed Eng. 2005 Nov;33(11):1653–1670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Understanding how technical standards are made & maintained - IEEE innovation at work. 2018 Oct 4 [cited 2019 Jan 18]. Available from: https://innovationatwork.ieee.org/understanding-how-technical-standards-are-made-maintained/
   Google Scholar
• 2794 - standard for reporting of in vivo neural interface research. 2019 [cited 2019 Jan 18]. Available from: https://standards.ieee.org/project/2794.html
   Google Scholar