KITE-BCI: A brain-computer interface system for functional electrical stimulation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT/OBJECTIVE: Integrating brain-computer interface (BCI) technology with functional electrical stimulation therapy (FEST) is an emerging strategy for upper limb motor rehabilitation after spinal cord injury (SCI). Despite promising results, the combined use of these technologies (BCI-FEST) in clinical practice is minimal. To address this issue, we developed KITE-BCI, a BCI system specifically designed for clinical application and integration with dynamic FEST. In this paper, we report its technical features and performance. In addition, we discuss the differences in distributions of the BCI- and therapist-triggered stimulation latencies. DESIGN: Two single-arm 40-session interventional studies to test the feasibility of BCI-controlled FEST for upper limb motor rehabilitation in individuals with cervical SCI. SETTING: Rehabilitation programs within the University and Lyndhurst Centres of the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Five individuals with sub-acute (< 6 months post-injury) SCI at the C4-C5 level, AIS B-D, and three individuals with chronic (> 24 months post-injury) SCI at C4 level, AIS B-C. OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured BCI setup duration, and to characterize the performance of KITE-BCI, we recorded BCI sensitivity, defined as the percentage of successful BCI activations out of the total number of cued movements. RESULTS: The overall BCI sensitivities were 74.46% and 79.08% for the sub-acute and chronic groups, respectively. The average KITE-BCI setup duration across the two studies was 11 min and 13 s. CONCLUSION: KITE-BCI demonstrates a clinically viable single-channel BCI system for integration with FEST resulting in a versatile technology-enhanced upper limb motor rehabilitation strategy after SCI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".