Examination of effectiveness of kinaesthetic haptic feedback for motor imagery-based brain-computer interface training

References

• Besio S, Dini S, Robins B (2007). Critical factors involved in using interactive robots for play activities of children with disabilities. Paper presented at the Challenges for Assistive Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Ferland F. Le modèle ludique. Montreal: Les presses de l'Université de Montréal; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Blanche EI. Play in Children with Cerebral Palsy: Doing With—Not Doing To. Play in Occupational Therapy for Children, 2nd ed. Maryland Heights, MO: Mosby; 2008. p. 375–393.
   Google Scholar
• Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Ferrari E, et al. Scenarios of robot-assisted play for children with cognitive and physical disabilities. Interac Studies. 2012;13(2):189–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rios RAM. Playfulness in children with severe cerebral palsy when using a robot. Edmonton, AB, Canada: University of Alberta; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Kronreif G, Prazak B, Kornfeld M, et al. (2007). Robot Assistant “PlayROB”-User Trials and Results. Paper presented at the 16th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Jeju, Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Heuvel RJF, Lexis MAS, Gelderblom GJ, et al. Robots and ICT to support play in children with severe physical disabilities: a systematic review. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Tech. 2016;11(2):103–116 114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collinger JL, Wodlinger B, Downey JE, et al. Articles: high-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet. 2013;381(9866):557–564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFarland DJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control. Commun ACM. 2011;54(5):60–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunez PL, Srinivasan R. Electric fields of the brain: the neurophysics of EEG. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Encarnação P, Leite T, Nunes C, et al. Using assistive robots to promote inclusive education. Disab & Rehabi Tech. 2017;12(4):352–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfurtscheller G, Aranibar A. Evaluation of event-related desynchronization (ERD) preceding and following voluntary self-paced movement. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1979;46(2):138–146.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pfurtscheller G, Neuper C. Dynamics of Sensorimotor Oscillations in a Motor Task. In: Graimann B, Pfurtscheller G, Allison B, editors. Brain-computer interfaces: revolutionizing human-computer interaction. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. p. 47–64.
   Google Scholar
• Tan DS, Nijholt A. Brain-computer interfaces: applying our minds to human-computer interaction. London: Springer; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Graimann B, Allison B, Pfurtscheller G. Brain-computer interfaces: revolutionizing human-computer interaction. Heidelberg; New York: Springer-Verlag; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Jeunet C, Jahanpour E, Lotte F. Why Standard Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) training protocols should be changed: an experimental study. J of Neural Eng. 2016;13(3). DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/13/3/036024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cincotti F, Mattia D, Aloise F, et al. Research report: non-invasive brain–computer interface system: towards its application as assistive technology. Brain Res Bull. 2008;75(6):796–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly I, Faller J, Scherer R, et al. Exploration of the neural correlates of cerebral palsy for sensorimotor BCI control. Front Neuroeng. 2014;7:20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• López-Larraz E, Montesano L, Gil-Agudo Á, et al. Continuous decoding of movement intention of upper limb self-initiated analytic movements from pre-movement EEG correlates. J NeuroEng & Rehab. 2014;11(1):1–28.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kinney-Lang E, Auyeung B, Escudero J. Expanding the (kaleido)scope: exploring current literature trends for translating electroencephalography (EEG) based brain-computer interfaces for motor rehabilitation in children. J Neural Eng. 2016;13(6):061002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikołajewska E, Mikołajewski D. The prospects of brain — computer interface applications in children. Cen Eur J Med. 2014;9(1):74–79.
   Google Scholar
• Orlandi S, House SC, Karlsson P, et al. Brain-computer interfaces for children with complex communication needs and limited mobility: a systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021;15:643294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berchicci M, Zhang T, Romero L, et al. Development of mu rhythm in infants and preschool children. Vol. 33. Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG; 2011. p. 130–143.
   Google Scholar
• Lee NG, Kang SK, Lee DR, et al. Feasibility and test-retest reliability of an electroencephalography-based brain mapping system in children with cerebral palsy: a preliminary investigation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(5):882–888 887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taherian S, Selitskiy D, Pau J, et al. Are we there yet? Evaluating commercial grade brain-computer interface for control of computer applications by individuals with cerebral palsy. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(2):165–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Jadavji Z, Zewdie E, et al. Evaluating if children can use simple brain computer Interfaces. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019;13:24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukoyanov M, Gordleeva SY, Pimashkin AS, et al. The efficiency of the brain-computer interfaces based on motor imagery with tactile and visual feedback. Human Physiol. 2018;44(3):280–288.
   Google Scholar
• Sigrist R, Rauter G, Riener R, et al. Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: a review. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013;20(1):21–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishihara W, Moxon K, Ehrman S, et al. (2020). Feedback modalities in brain–computer interfaces: a systematic review. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 64, 1186–1190.
   Google Scholar
• Murguialday AR, Aggarwal V, Chatterjee A, et al. (2007 ()). Brain-computer interface for a prosthetic hand using local machine control and haptic feedback. 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 609–613.
   Google Scholar
• Jeunet C, Vi C, Spelmezan D, et al. Continuous tactile feedback for motor-imagery based brain-computer interaction in a multitasking context. Cham: Springer; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Angulo-Sherman IN, Gutiérrez D (2014 ()). Effect of different feedback modalities in the performance of brain-computer interfaces. Paper presented at the 2014 International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Computers (CONIELECOMP) Cholula, Puebla, Mexico.
   Google Scholar
• Fleury M, Lioi G, Barillot C, et al. A survey on the use of haptic feedback for brain-computer interfaces and neurofeedback. Front Neurosci. 2020;14. DOI:10.3389/fnins.2020.00528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfurtscheller G, Guger C, Müller G, et al. Brain oscillations control hand orthosis in a tetraplegic. Neurosci Lett. 2000;292(3):211–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ang KK, Guan C, Chua KSG, et al. (2009). A clinical study of motor imagery-based brain-computer interface for upper limb robotic rehabilitation. Conference Proceedings: … Annual International Conference Of The IEEE Engineering In Medicine And Biology Society. IEEE Engineering In Medicine And Biology Society. Annual Conference Minneapolis, MN, USA, 5981–5984. 10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5335381
   Google Scholar
• Gomez-Rodriguez M, Peters J, Hill J, et al. (2010). Closing the sensorimotor loop: haptic feedback facilitates decoding of arm movement imagery. Paper presented at the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Istanbul, Turkey.
   Google Scholar
• Vukelić M, Gharabaghi A. Oscillatory entrainment of the motor cortical network during motor imagery is modulated by the feedback modality. Neuroimage. 2015;111:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higginbotham DJ. Use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research: confessions of a research infidel. AAC Augm Alt comm. 1995;11(1):2–5
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton D, Light J. What we write about when we write about aac: the past 30 years of research and future directions. Augm Alter Comm. 2015;31(4):261–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MIYAKE, S Mental workload assessment and analysis -a reconsideration of the NASA-TLX The Japanese Journal of Ergonomics. 2015;51(6):91–398.
   Google Scholar
• Renard Y, Lotte F, Gibert G, et al. OpenViBE: an open-source software platform to design, test, and use brain–computer interfaces in real and virtual environments. Presence. 2010;19(1):35–53.
   Google Scholar
• Christoph G, Günter E. The First Commercial Brain–Computer Interface Environment. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. p. 281.
   Google Scholar
• Shiman F, Irastorza-Landa N, Sarasola-Sanz A, et al. (2015). Towards decoding of functional movements from the same limb using EEG. Annual International Conference Of The IEEE Engineering In Medicine And Biology Society, Milan, Italy. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2015.7318759
   Google Scholar
• Pfurtscheller G, Neuper C, Guger C, et al. Current trends in Graz Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) research. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 2000;8(2):216–219.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koles ZJ, Lazar MS, Zhou SZ. Spatial patterns underlying population differences in the background EEG. Brain Topogr. 1990;2(4):275–284.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Romero-Laiseca MA, Sakamaki I, Adams K, et al. (2019). An overview about classifiers for open source brain-computer interface based on motor imagery Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Assistive Technology Vitoria, Brazil VITORIA.
   Google Scholar
• Abu-Rmileh A, Zakkay E, Shmuelof L, et al. Co-adaptive training improves efficacy of a multi-day EEG-based motor imagery BCI training. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019;13(362). DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00362
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vidaurre C, Sannelli C, Müller KR, et al. Co-adaptive calibration to improve BCI efficiency. J Neural Eng. 2011;8(2):025009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyake S. Special issues no. 3: measurement technique for ergonomics, section 3. Psych Meas Ana. 2015;6.
   Google Scholar
• Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol. 1988;52:139–183.
   Google Scholar
• Stastný J, Kostilek M, Sovka P. Overcoming inter-subject variability in BCI Using EEG-based identification. Zootaxa. 2014;3795:25–37.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yao L, Sheng X, Zhang D, et al. A BCI SYSTEM BASED ON SOMATOSENSORY ATTENTIONAL ORIEntation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017;25(1):78–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atyabi A, Fitzgibbon SP, Powers DMW. Multiplication of EEG Samples through Replicating, Biasing, and Overlapping International Conference on Brain Informatics. Macau, China. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2012;7670.
   Google Scholar
• Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Bartlett D, et al. Gross motor function classification system expanded and revised. Hamilton, ON, Canada: CanChild Center for Childhood Disability Research, McMaster University; 2007. https://www.canchild.ca.
   Google Scholar
• Eliasson AC, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Rösblad B, et al. The manual ability classification system (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy: scale development and evidence of validity and reliability. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48(7):549–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vabalas A, Gowen E, Poliakoff E, et al. Machine learning algorithm validation with a limited sample size. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(11):e0224365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuper C, Pfurtscheller G. Neurofeedback Training for BCI Control. In: Graimann B, Pfurtscheller G, Allison B, editors. Brain-Computer interfaces: revolutionizing human-computer interaction. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. p. 65–78.
   Google Scholar
• Pfurtscheller G, Neuper C, Guger C, et al. Current trends in Graz brain-computer interface (BCI) research. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2000;8(2):216–219.
   Google Scholar
• Huang D, Lin P, Fei D-Y, et al. Decoding human motor activity from EEG single trials for a discrete two-dimensional cursor control. J Neural Eng. 2009;6(4):46005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakusa M, Hribar A, Koritnik B, et al. Assessment of the haptic robot as a new tool for the study of the neural control of reaching. Neurol Sci. 2013;34(10):1779–1790.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solis-Escalante T, Müller-Putz G, Brunner C, et al. Analysis of sensorimotor rhythms for the implementation of a brain switch for healthy subjects. Biomed Signal Process Control. 2010;5(1):15–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar