MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039975619 · doi:10.3109/17483107.2014.961569

Application of BCI systems in neurorehabilitation: a scoping review

2015· review· en· W2039975619 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversity of California, Los Angeles
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceNeurorehabilitationRehabilitationComputer scienceElectroencephalographyMotor imageryInterface (matter)Physical medicine and rehabilitationHuman–computer interactionPsychologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To review various types of electroencephalographic activities of the brain and present an overview of brain-computer interface (BCI) systems' history and their applications in rehabilitation. METHODS: A scoping review of published English literature on BCI application in the field of rehabilitation was undertaken. IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar and Scopus databases were searched since inception up to August 2012. All experimental studies published in English and discussed complete cycle of the BCI process was included in the review. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In total, 90 articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Various approaches that improve the accuracy and performance of BCI systems were discussed. Based on BCI's clinical application, reviewed articles were categorized into three groups: motion rehabilitation, speech rehabilitation and virtual reality control (VRC). Almost half of the reviewed papers (48%) concentrated on VRC. Speech rehabilitation and motion rehabilitation made up 33% and 19% of the reviewed papers, respectively. Among different types of electroencephalography signals, P300, steady state visual evoked potentials and motor imagery signals were the most common. CONCLUSIONS: This review discussed various applications of BCI in rehabilitation and showed how BCI can be used to improve the quality of life for people with neurological disabilities. It will develop and promote new models of communication and finally, will create an accurate, reliable, online communication between human brain and computer and reduces the negative effects of external stimuli on BCI performance. Implications for Rehabilitation The field of brain-computer interfaces (BCI) is rapidly advancing and it is expected to fulfill a critical role in rehabilitation of neurological disorders and in movement restoration in the forthcoming years. In the near future, BCI has notable potential to become a major tool used by people with disabilities to control locomotion and communicate with surrounding environment and, consequently, improve the quality of life for many affected persons. Electrical field recording at the scalp (i.e. electroencephalography) is the most likely method to be of practical value for clinical use as it is simple and non-invasive. However, some aspects need future improvements, such as the ability to separate close imagery signal (motion of extremities and phalanges that are close together).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it