6/12/23, 8:49 PM Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control - PMC

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM

database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or
the National Institutes of Health. Learn more about our disclaimer.

Commun ACM. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 Oct 6. PMCID: PMC3188401
Published in final edited form as: NIHMSID: NIHMS324633
Commun ACM. 2011; 54(5): 60–66. PMID: 21984822
doi: 10.1145/1941487.1941506

Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control

Dennis J. McFarland and Jonathan R. Wolpaw

1. INTRODUCTION

Brain activity produces electrical signals that are detectable on the scalp, on the cortical
surface or within the brain. Brain computer interfaces (BCIs) translate these signals into
outputs that function to allow the user to communicate without the participation of pe‐
ripheral nerves and muscles [36] (see Figure 1). Because they do not depend on neuro‐
muscular control, BCIs can provide options for communication and control for people
with devastating neuromuscular disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS),
brainstem stroke, cerebral palsy and spinal cord injury. The central purpose of BCI re‐
search and development is to enable these users to convey their wishes to caregivers,
to use word-processing programs and other software, or even to control a robotic arm
or a neuroprosthesis. More recently there has been speculation that BCIs could be use‐
ful to people with lesser, or even no, motor impairments.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188401/ 1/11
6/12/23, 8:49 PM Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control - PMC

Figure 1

Basic design and operation of any BCI system. Signals from the brain are acquired by electrodes on
the scalp or head and processed to extract specific signal features that reflect the user’s intent. These
features are translated into commands to operate a device. The user must develop and maintain good
correlation between his or her intent and the signal features employed by the BCI and the BCI must
select and extract features that the user can control and must translate those features into device
commands. (adapted from [36]).

It has been known since the pioneering work of Hans Berger over 80 years ago that the
electrical activity of the brain can be recorded non-invasively by electrodes on the sur‐
face of the scalp [23]. Berger observed that a rhythm of about 10 Hz was prominent on
the posterior scalp and was reactive to light. He called it the alpha rhythm. This and
other observations by Berger showed that the electroencephalogram (EEG) could serve
as an index of the gross state of the brain. Despite Berger’s careful work many scien‐
tists were initially skeptical and there were suggestions that the EEG might represent
some sort of artifact. However, subsequent work demonstrated conclusively that the
EEG is produced by brain activity [23].

Electrodes on the surface of the scalp are at some distance from brain tissue and are
separated from it by the coverings of the brain, the skull, subcutaneous tissue, and the
scalp. As a result, the signal is considerably degraded and only the synchronized activity
of large numbers of neural elements can be detected. This limits the resolution with
which brain activity can be monitored. Furthermore, scalp electrodes also pick up activ‐
ity from sources other than the brain. These other sources include environmental noise
(e.g., 50- or 60-Hz activity from power lines) and biological noise (e.g. activity from the
heart, skeletal muscles, and eyes). Nevertheless, since the time of Berger, many studies
have used the EEG very effectively to gain insight into brain function. Many of these
studies have used averaging to separate EEG from superimposed electrical noise.

There are two major paradigms used in EEG research. Evoked potentials are transient
waveforms (i.e., brief pertubations in the ongoing activity) that are phase-locked to an
event such as a visual stimulus. They are typically analyzed by averaging many similar
events in the time-domain. The EEG also contains oscillatory features. Although these
oscillatory features may occur in response to specific events, they are usually not
phase-locked and are typically studied by spectral analysis. Historically, most EEG stud‐
ies have examined phase-locked evoked potentials. Both of these major paradigms have
been applied in BCIs [36].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188401/ 2/11
6/12/23, 8:49 PM Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control - PMC

The term brain-computer interface can be traced to Vidal who devised a BCI system
based on visual evoked-potentials [34]. His users viewed a diamond-shaped red
checkerboard illuminated with a xenon flash. By attending to different corners of the
flashing checkerboard they could generate right, up, left, or down commands. This en‐
abled them to move through a maze presented on a graphic terminal. An IBM360 main‐
frame digitized the data and a XDS Sigma 7 computer controlled the experimental
events. The users first provided data to train a stepwise linear discriminant function.
These users then navigated the maze online in real-time. Thus, Vidal [34] used signal
processing techniques to realize real-time analysis of the EEG with minimal averaging.
The waveforms shown by Vidal [34] suggest that his BCI used EEG activity in the time
frame of the N100-P200 components (The N and P indicate negative and positive peaks
and the numbers indicate the approximate latency in msec).

Vidal’s achievement was an interesting demonstration of proof-of-principle. At the time,

it was far from practical given that it depended on a time-shared system with limited
processing capacity. Vidal [34] also included in his system online removal of non-EEG
(i.e., ocular) artifacts. Somewhat earlier, Dewan [6] instructed users to explicitly use eye
movements in order to modulate their brain waves. He showed that subjects could
learn to transmit Morse code messages using EEG activity associated with eye
movements.

The fact that both the Dewan and Vidal BCIs depended on eye movements made them
somewhat less interesting from scientific or clinical points of view, since they required
actual muscle control (i.e., eye movements) and simply used EEG to reflect the resulting
gaze direction.

2. VARIETIES OF BCI SIGNALS

Farwell and Donchin [7] reported the first use of a P300-based spelling device (see
Figure 2b). The P300 is a positive potential occurring around 300 msec after an event
that is significant to the subject. It is considered a “cognitive” potential since it is gener‐
ated in tasks when subjects attend and discriminate stimuli. Farwell and Donchin’s[7]
users viewed a 6 × 6 matrix of the letters of the alphabet and several other symbols.
They focused attention on the desired selection as the rows and columns of the matrix
were repeatedly flashed to elicit visual evoked potentials. Farwell and Donchin [7]
found that their users were able to spell the word “brain” with the P300 spelling device.
In addition, they did an offline comparison of detection algorithms and found that the
stepwise linear discriminant analysis was generally best. The fact that the P300 poten‐
tial reflects attention rather than simply gaze direction implied that this BCI did not de‐
pend on muscle (i.e., eye-movement) control. Thus, it represented a significant advance.
Several groups have further developed this BCI method [13].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188401/ 3/11
6/12/23, 8:49 PM Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control - PMC

Figure 2

Present-day human BCI systems. A–B are non-invasive and Cis invasive. A. Sensorimotor rhythm
BCI. Scalp EEG is recorded over sensorimotor cortex. Users control the amplitude of rhythms to
move a cursor to a target on the screen. B. P300 BCI. A matrix of possible choices is presented on a
screen and scalp EEG is recorded while these choices flash in succession. C. Cortical neuronal BCI.
Electrodes implanted in cortex detect action potentials of single neurons. Users learn to control neu‐
ronal firing rate to move a cursor on a screen. (adapted from [36]).

Wolpaw et al. [38] reported the first use of sensorimotor rhythms (SMRs) for cursor
control (see Figure 2a). Sensorimotor rhythms are EEG rhythms that change with move‐
ment or the imagination of movement and are spontaneous in the sense that they do
not require specific stimuli for their occurrence. People learned to vary their SMRs to
move a cursor to hit one of two targets located on the top or bottom edge of a video
screen. Cursor movement was controlled by SMR amplitude (measured by spectral
analysis). A distinctive feature of this task is that it required the user to rapidly switch
between two states in order to select a particular target. The rapid bidirectional nature
of the Wolpaw et al. [38] paradigm made it distinct from prior studies that produced
long-term unidirectional changes in brain rhythms (e.g,, users were required to main‐
tain an increase in the size of an EEG rhythm for minutes at a time). In a series of subse‐
quent studies, this group showed that the signals that controlled the cursor were actual
EEG activity and also that covert muscle activity did not mediate this EEG control
[18,31].

These initial SMR results were subsequently replicated by others [21,24] and extended
to multidimensional control [37]. Together, these P300 and SMR BCI studies showed
that non-invasive EEG recording of brain signals can serve as the basis for communica‐
tion and control devices.

A number of laboratories have explored the possibility of developing brain-computer

interfaces using single-neuron activity detected by microelectrodes implanted in cortex
[12,30] (see Figure 2c). Much of this research had been done in non-human primates.
However there have been trials in human users [12]. Other studies have shown that
recordings of electrocorticographic (ECoG) activity from the surface of the brain can
also provide signals for a BCI [15]. To date these studies have indicated that invasive
recording methods could also serve as the basis for BCIs. At the same time, important
issues concerning their suitability for long-term human use remain to be resolved.

Earlier studies demonstrating operant conditioning of single units in motor cortex of

primates [9], the hippocampal theta rhythm of dogs [2] or the sensorimotor rhythm in
humans [29] showed that brain activity could be trained with operant techniques.
However these studies are not demonstrations of BCI systems for communication and
control since they required subjects to increase brain activity for periods of many min‐
utes. Thus they showed that brain activity could be tonically altered in a single direction
by training. However communication and control devices require that the user be able
to select from at least two distinct alternatives (i.e., there must be at least one bit of in‐
formation per selection). Effective communication and control devices require users to
rapidly switch between multiple alternatives.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188401/ 4/11
6/12/23, 8:49 PM Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control - PMC

In addition to electrophysiological measures, researchers have also demonstrated the

feasibility of magnetoencephalography (MEG)[20], functional magnetic resonance imag‐
ing (fMRI)[28], and near-infrared systems (fNIR)[4]. Present technology for recording
MEG and fMRI is both expensive and very bulky, making these technologies unlikely for
practical applications in the near term. fNIR is potentially cheaper and more compact.
However both fMRI and fNIR are based on changes in cerebral blood flow, which is an
inherently slow response [11]. Currently electrophysiological features represent the
most practical signals for BCI applications.

3. BCI SYSTEM DESIGN

Communication and control applications are interactive processes that require the user
to observe the results of their efforts in order to maintain good performance and to
correct mistakes. For this reason, actual BCIs need to run in real-time and to provide
real-time feedback to the user. While many early BCI studies satisfied this requirement
[24,38], later studies have often been based on offline analyses of pre-recorded data
[1]. For example, in the Lotte et al. [16] review of studies evaluating BCI signal classifi‐
cation algorithms, most had used offline analyses. Indeed, the current popularity of BCI
research is probably due in part to the ease with which offline analyses can be per‐
formed on publicly available data sets. While such offline studies may help to guide ac‐
tual online BCI investigations, there is no guarantee that offline results will generalize to
online performance. The user’s brain signals are often affected by the BCI’s outputs,
which are in turn determined by the algorithm that the BCI is using. Thus, it is not possi‐
ble to predict results exactly from offline analyses that cannot take those effects into
account.

Blankertz et al. [3] note several trends in the results of a BCI data classification competi‐
tion. Most of the winning entries used linear classifiers, the most popular being Fisher’s
discriminant and linear support vector machines (SVM). The winning entries for data
sets with multichannel oscillatory features often used common spatial patterns. In their
review of the literature on BCI classifiers, Lotte et al. [16] conclude that SVMs are par‐
ticularly efficient. They attribute this to their regularization property and their immunity
to the curse-of-dimensionality. They also concluded that combinations of classifiers
seem to be very efficient. Lotte et al. [16] also note that there is a lack of comparisons
of classifiers within the same study using otherwise identical parameters.

Muller and Blankertz [21] have advocated a machine learning approach to BCI in which
a statistical analysis of a calibration measurement is used to train the system. The goal
of this approach is to develop a “zero-training” method that provides effective perfor‐
mance from the first session. They contrast this approach with one based on training
users to control specific features of brain signals [38]. A system that can be used with‐
out extensive training is appealing since it requires less initial effort on the part of both
the BCI user and the system operator. The operation of such a system is based upon the
as yet uncertain premise that the user can repeatedly and reliably maintain the speci‐
fied correlations between brain signals and intent. Figure 3 presents three different
conceptualizations of where adaptation might take place to establish and maintain good
BCI performance. In the first the BCI adapts to the user, in the second the user adapts to
the BCI, and in the third both user and system adapt to each other.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188401/ 5/11
6/12/23, 8:49 PM Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control - PMC

Figure 3

Three approaches to BCI design. The arrows indicate the element that adapts. This is either the BCI,
the user, or both adapt to optimize and maintain BCI performance. (adapted from [17]).

A number of BCI systems are designed to detect the user’s performance of specific cog‐
nitive tasks. Curran et al. [3] suggest that cognitive tasks such as navigation and audi‐
tory imagery might be more useful in driving a BCI than motor imagery. However, sen‐
sorimotor rhythm-based BCIs may have several advantages over systems that depend
on complex cognitive operations. For example, the structures involved in auditory im‐
agery are also likely to be driven by auditory sensory input. Wolpaw and McFarland
[37] report that with extended practice users report that motor imagery no longer is
necessary to operate a sensorimotor rhythm-based BCI. As is typical of many simple
motor tasks, performance becomes automatized with extended practice. Automatized
performance may be less likely to interfere with mental operations that users might
wish to engage in concurrent with BCI use. For example, composing a manuscript is
much easier if the writer does not need to think extensively about each individual
keystroke.

As noted above, EEG recording may be contaminated by non-brain activity (e.g., line
noise, muscle activity, etc.) (see Fatourechi et al. [8] for a review). Activity recorded
from the scalp represents the superposition of many signals, some of which originate in
the brain and some of which originate elsewhere. These include potentials generated by
the retinal dipoles (i.e., eye movements and eye blinks) and the facial muscles. It is note‐
worthy that mental effort is often associated with changes in eye blink rate and muscle
activity [35]. BCI Users might generate these artifacts without being aware of what they
are doing simply by making facial expressions associated with effort.

Facial muscles can generate signals with energy in the spectral bands used as features
in an SMR-based BCI [18]. Muscle activity can also modulate SMR activity. For example,
a user could move his/her right hand in order to desynchronize the mu rhythm over
the left hemisphere. This sort of mediation of the EEG by peripheral muscle movements
was a concern during the early days of BCI development. As noted earlier, Dewan [6]
trained users to send Morse code messages using occipital alpha rhythms modulated by
voluntary movements of eye muscles. For this reason, Vaughan et al. [33] recorded
EMG from 10 distal limb muscles while BCI users used central mu or beta rhythms to
move a cursor to targets on a video screen. EMG activity was very low in these well-
trained users. Most importantly, the correlations between target position and EEG activ‐
ity could not be accounted for by EMG activity. Similar studies have been done with BCI
users moving a cursor in two dimensions [37]. These studies show that SMR modula‐
tion does not require actual movements or muscle activity.

4. BCI APPLICATIONS

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188401/ 6/11
6/12/23, 8:49 PM Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control - PMC

There have been several recent BCI spelling systems based different EEG signals includ‐
ing the mu rhythm [22,26] and the P300 [31]. Both of the mu rhythm systems made use
of machine learning paradigms that minimized training. Users of the mu-based systems
reportedly averaged between 2.3–7 characters/min [22] and 2.85–3.38 characters/min
[26]. The P300 system averaged 3.66 selections/min [31]. As noted by Townsend et al.
[24] the reported rate depends upon how the figure is computed and authors often do
not provide details. Omitting time between trials increased Townsend et al.’s [31] results
from 3.66 to 5.92 characters/sec. In any case, these various systems perform within a
similar general range. At current rates, only users with limited options could benefit
from their use.

BCI systems have also been developed for control applications. For example several
groupos have shown that human subjects could use EEG to drive a simulated wheel‐
chair [10,14]. Bell et al. [1] showed that the P300 could be used to select between com‐
plex commands to a partially autonomous humanoid robot. For a review of the use of
BCI for robotic and prosthetic devices see McFarland and Wolpaw [19].

Several commercial concerns have recently produced inexpensive devices that are pur‐
ported to measure EEG. Both Emotiv and Neurosky have developed products with a lim‐
ited number of electrodes that do not use conventional gel-based recording technology
[27]. These devices are intended to provide input for video games. It is not clear to
what extent these devices use actual EEG activity as opposed to scalp muscle activity or
other non-brain signals. Given the well-established prominence of EMG activity in activ‐
ity recorded from the head, it seems likely that such signals account for much of the
control produced by these devices [27].

5. PROSPECTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In a review of the use of BCI technology for robotic and prosthetic devices, McFarland
and Wolpaw [19] concluded that the major problem currently facing BCI applications is
providing fast, accurate and reliable control signals. This is true for other uses of BCI as
well. Current BCI systems that have been shown to operate using actual brain activity
can provide communication and control options that are of practical value mainly for
people who are severely limited in their motor skills and thus have few other options.
Widespread use of BCI technology by individuals with little or no disability is unlikely in
the short-term. This would require much greater speed and accuracy than has so far
been demonstrated in the scientific literature.

Both non-invasive and invasive methods could benefit from improvements in recording
methods. Current invasive methods have not yet dealt adequately with the need for
long-term performance stability. The brain’s complex reaction to an implant is still im‐
perfectly understood and can impair long-term performance. Current non-invasive (i.e.,
EEG) electrodes require a certain level of skill in the person placing them, and require
periodic maintenance to maintain sufficiently good contact with the skin. More conve‐
nient and stable electrodes are under development. Improved methods for extracting
key EEG features, for translating those features into device control, and for training
users should also help to improve BCI performance.

Recent developments in computer hardware have provided compact portable systems

that are extremely powerful. Use of digital electronics has also lead to improvements in
the size and performance of EEG amplifiers. Thus it is no longer necessary to use a
large time-shared mainframe as was the case with Vidal [34]. Standard laptops can eas‐
ily handle the vast majority of real-time BCI protocols. There have also been improve‐
ments in signal processing and machine learning algorithms. Coupled with the discov‐
ery of new EEG features for BCI use and the development of new paradigms for user

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188401/ 7/11
6/12/23, 8:49 PM Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control - PMC

training, these improvements are gradually increasing the speed and reliability of BCI
communication and control. These developments can be facilitated by the BCI2000 soft‐
ware platform [25].

BCI2000 is a general-purpose research and development system that can incorporate

alone or in combination any brain signals, signal processing methods, output devices,
and operating protocols. BCI2000 consists of a general standard for creating inter‐
changeable modules designed according to object-oriented principles (see Figure 5).
These consist of a source module for signal acquisition, a signal processing module, and
a user application. Configuration and coordination of these three modules is accom‐
plished by a fourth operator module. To date several different source modules, signal
processing modules, and user applications have been created for the BCI2000 standard
(see http://www.bci2000.org/BCI2000/Home.html).

Figure 5

BCI2000 design. BCI2000 consists of four modules: operator, source, signal processing, and applica‐
tion. The operator module deals with system configuration and online presentation of results to the
investigator. During operation, information is communicated from source to signal processing to
user application and back to source (adapted from [25]).

We have recently begun to develop a system for home use by individuals with severe
motor impairments [32]. The basic hardware for this system is shown in Figure 4 and
consists of a laptop computer with 16 channel EEG acquisition, a second screen that is
placed in front of the user, and an electrode cap. Software for this system is provided by
the BCI2000 general-purpose system [25]. The initial users of this system are individu‐
als with late-stage ALS who have little or no voluntary movement and have found con‐
ventional assistive communication devices to be inadequate for their needs. We use the
P300-based matrix speller for these applications due to its relatively high throughput
for spelling and simplicity of use. Currently, a 49-year-old scientist with ALS has used
this BCI system on a daily basis for approximately 3 years. He found it superior to his
eye-gaze system (i.e., a letter selection device based upon direction of eye gaze) and
uses the BCI 4–6 h/day for e-mail and other important purposes [32].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188401/ 8/11
6/12/23, 8:49 PM Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control - PMC

Figure 4

Hardware used in our current home BCI system. It consists of a 16 channel electrode cap for signal
recording, a solid-state amplifier, a laptop, and an additional monitor to provide for the user display.

How far BCI technology will develop and how useful it will become depends on future
research developments. At present, it is apparent that BCIs can serve the basic commu‐
nication needs of people whose severe motor disabilities prevent them from using con‐
ventional augmentative communications devices, all of which require some muscle
control.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by grants from NIH (HD30146 (NCMRR, NICHD) and
EB00856 (NIBIB & NINDS)) and the James S. McDonnell Foundation. We thank Chad
Boulay and Peter Brunner for their comments on this manuscript.

Contributor Information

Dennis J. McFarland, Laboratory of Neural Injury and Repair, Wadsworth Center, New
York State Department of Health, Albany, New York 12201-0509.

Jonathan R. Wolpaw, Laboratory of Neural Injury and Repair, Wadsworth Center, New
York State Department of Health, Albany, New York 12201-0509.

References

1. Bell CJ, Shenoy P, Chalodhorn R, Rao RPN. Control of a humanoid robot by a noninvasive brain-computer
interface in humans. Journal of Neural Engineering. 2008;5:214–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Black AH, Young GA, Batenchuk C. Avoidance training of hippocampal theta waves in flaxedilized dogs and
its relation to skeletal movement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 1970;70:15–24.
[PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Blankertz B, Muller K-R, Krusienski DJ, Schalk G, Wolpaw JR, Schlogl A, Pfurtscheller G, Millan J, Schroder
M, Birbaumer N. The BCI competition III: Validating alternative approaches to actual BCI problems. IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 2006;14:153–159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Coyle SM, Ward TE, Markham CM. Brain-computer interface using a simplified functional near-infrared
spectroscopy system. Journal of Neural Engineering. 2007;4:219–226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188401/ 9/11
6/12/23, 8:49 PM Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control - PMC

5. Curran E, Sykacek P, Stokes M, Roberts SJ, Penny W, Johnsrude I, Owen A. IEEE Transactions on Neural
Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. Vol. 12. 2003. pp. 48–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Dewan EM. Occipital alpha rhythm eye position and lens accommodation. Nature. 1967;214:975–977.
[PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Farwell LA, Donchin E. Talking off the top of your head: toward a mental prosthesis utilizing event-related
brain potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 1988;70:510–523. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]

8. Fatourechi M, Bashashati A, Ward RK, Birch GE. EMG and EOG artifacts in brain computer interface systems:
a survey. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2007;118:480–494. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Fetz EE. Operant conditioning of cortical unit activity. Science. 1969;163:955–958. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]

10. Galan F, Nuttin M, Lew E, Ferrez PW, Vanacker G, Philips J, Millan JdR. A brain-actuated wheelchair:
Asynchronous and non-invasive Brain-computer interfaces for continuous control of robots. Clinical
Neurophysiology. 2008;119:2159–2169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. He B, Liu Z. Multimodal functional neuroimaging: integrating functional MRI and EEG/MEG. IEEE Reviews
in Biomedical Engineering. 2008;1:23–40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Hochberg LR, Serruya MD, Friehs GM, Mukand JA, Saleh M, Caplan AH, Branner A, Penn DRD, Donoghue JP.
Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature. 2006;442:164–171.
[PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Krusienski DJ, Sellers EW, McFarland DJ, Vaughan TM, Wolpaw JR. Toward enhanced P300 speller
performance. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 2008;167:15–21. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Leeb R, Friedman D, Muller-Putz GR, Scherer R, Slater M, Pfurtscheller G. Self-paced (Asynchronous) BCI
control of a Wheelchair in virtual environments: A case study with a tetraplegic. Computational Intelligence
and Neuroscience. 2007:79642. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Leuthardt EC, Schalk G, Wolpaw JR, Ojemann JG, Moran DW. A brain-computer interface using
electrocorticographic signals in humans. Journal of Neural Engineering. 2004;1:63–71. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]

16. Lotte F, Congedo M, Lecuyer A, Lamarche F, Arnaldi B. A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based
brain-computer interfaces. Journal of Neural Engineering. 2007;4:1–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. McFarland DJ, Krusienski DJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interface signal processing at the Wadsworth
Center: mu and sensorimotor beta rhythms. Progress in Brain Research. 2006;159:411–419. [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]

18. McFarland DJ, Sarnacki WA, Vaughan TM, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interface (BCI) operation: signal and
nosie during early training sessions. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2005;116:56–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. McFarland DJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interface operation of robotic and prosthetic devices. Computer.
2008;41:48–52. [Google Scholar]

20. Mellinger J, Schalk G, Braun C, Preissl H, Rosenstiel W, Birbaumer N, Kubler A. An MEG-based brain-
computer interface (BCI) Neuroimage. 2007;36:581–593. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Muller K-R, Blankertz B. Towards noninvasive brain-computer interfaces. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.
2006;23:125–128. [Google Scholar]

22. Muller KR, Tangermann M, Dornhege G, Krauledat M, Curio GT, Blankertz B. Machine learning for real-time
single-trial EEG-analysis: From brain-computer interfacing to mental state monitoring. Journal of Neuroscience
Methods. 2008;167:82–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Neidermeyer E. Historical aspects. In: Neidermeyer E, Lopes da Silva F, editors. Electroencephalography:
Basic principals, clinical applications, and related fields. 5. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; Philadelphia: 2005.
pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]

24. Pfurtscheller G, Flotzinger D, Kalcher J. Brain-computer interface- a new communication device for
handicapped persons. Journal of Microcomputer Applications. 1993;16:293–299. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188401/ 10/11
6/12/23, 8:49 PM Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control - PMC

25. Schalk G, McFarland DJ, Hinterberger T, Birbaumer N, Wolpaw JR. BCI2000: A general-purpose brain-
computer interface (BCI) system. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2004;51:1034–1043. [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]

26. Scherer R, Muller GR, Neuper C, Graimann B, Pfurtschheller G. An asynchronously controlled EEG-based
virtual keyboard: Improvement of the spelling rate. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.
2004;51:979–984. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Singer E. Technology Review. 2008. July/August, Brain games; pp. 82–84. [Google Scholar]

28. Sitaram R, Caria A, Veit R, Gaber T, Rota G, Kuebler A, Birbaumer N. fMRI Brain-Computer interface: A tool
for Neuroscientific research and treatment. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience. 2007:25487. [PMC
free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Sterman MB, MacDonald LR, Stone RK. Biofeedback training of sensorimotor EEG in man and its effect on
epilepsy. Epilepsia. 1974;15:395–416. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Taylor DA, Helms Tillery S, Schwartz AB. Direct cortical control of 3D neuroprosthetic devices. Science.
2002;296:1829–1832. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Townsend G, LaPallo BK, Boulay CB, Krusienski DJ, Frye GE, Hauser CK, Schwartz NE, Vaughan TM,
Wolpaw JR, Sellers EW. A novel P300-based brain-computer interface stimulus presentation paradigm: Moving
beyond rows and columns. Clinical Neurophysiology. 121:1109–1120. in press. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[Google Scholar]

32. Vaughan TM, McFarland DJ, Schalk G, Sarnacki WA, Krusienski DJ, Sellers EW, Wolpaw JR. The Wadsworth
BCI research and development program: At home with BCI. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering.
2006;14:229–233. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Vaughan TM, Miner LA, McFarland DJ, Wolpaw JR. EEG-based communication: analysis of concurrent EMG
activity. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 1998;107:428–433. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Vidal JJ. Real-time detection of brain events in EEG. Proceedings of the IEEE. 1977;65:633–641. [Google
Scholar]

35. Whitham EM, Lewis T, Pope KJ, Fitzbibbon SP, Clark CR, Loveless S, DeLosAngeles D, Wallace AK, Broberg
M, Willoughby JO. Thinking activates EMG in scalp electrical recordings. Clinical Neurophysiology.
2008;119:1166–1175. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Wolpaw JR, Birbaumer N, McFarland DJ, Pfurtscheller G, Vaughan TM. Brain-computer interfaces for
communication and control. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2002;113:767–791. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Wolpaw JR, McFarland DJ. Control of a two-dimensional movement signal by a non-invasive brain-
computer interface. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 2004;51:17849–17854. [PMC free article]
[PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Wolpaw JR, McFarland DJ, Neat GW, Forneris CA. An EEG-based brain-computer interface for cursor
control. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 1991;78:252–259. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188401/ 11/11