MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998253530 · doi:10.1101/2019.12.27.19015727

Home Use of a Wireless Intracortical Brain-Computer Interface by Individuals With Tetraplegia

2019· preprint· en· W2998253530 on OpenAlexaff
John D. Simeral, Tommy Hosman, Jad Saab, Sharlene N. Flesher, Marco Vilela, Brian Franco, Jessica N. Kelemen, David M. Brandman, John G. Ciancibello, Paymon G. Rezaii, David M. Rosler, Krishna V. Shenoy, Jaimie M. Henderson, A. V. Nurmikko, Leigh R. Hochberg

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeOffice of Research and DevelopmentWu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford UniversityNational Institutes of HealthBoston Scientific CorporationMassachusetts General HospitalDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsBrain–computer interfaceTetraplegiaComputer scienceWirelessInterface (matter)NeuroprostheticsSpinal cord injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineSpinal cordTelecommunicationsPsychologyNeuroscienceElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Individuals with neurological disease or injury such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, spinal cord injury or stroke may become tetraplegic, unable to speak or even locked-in. For people with these conditions, current assistive technologies are often ineffective. Brain-computer interfaces are being developed to enhance independence and restore communication in the absence of physical movement. Over the past decade, individuals with tetraplegia have achieved rapid on-screen typing and point-and-click control of tablet apps using intracortical brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs) that decode intended arm and hand movements from neural signals recorded by implanted microelectrode arrays. However, cables used to convey neural signals from the brain tether participants to amplifiers and decoding computers and require expert oversight during use, severely limiting when and where iBCIs could be available for use. Here, we demonstrate the first human use of a wireless broadband iBCI. Based on a prototype system previously used in pre-clinical research, we replaced the external cables of a 192-electrode iBCI with wireless transmitters and achieved high-resolution recording and decoding of broadband field potentials and spiking activity from people with paralysis. Two participants in an ongoing pilot clinical trial performed on-screen item selection tasks to assess iBCI-enabled cursor control. Communication bitrates were equivalent between cabled and wireless configurations. Participants also used the wireless iBCI to control a standard commercial tablet computer to browse the web and use several mobile applications. Within-day comparison of cabled and wireless interfaces evaluated bit error rate, packet loss, and the recovery of spike rates and spike waveforms from the recorded neural signals. In a representative use case, the wireless system recorded intracortical signals from two arrays in one participant continuously through a 24-hour period at home. Wireless multi-electrode recording of broadband neural signals over extended periods introduces a valuable tool for human neuroscience research and is an important step toward practical deployment of iBCI technology for independent use by individuals with paralysis. On-demand access to high-performance iBCI technology in the home promises to enhance independence and restore communication and mobility for individuals with severe motor impairment.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207