BCI-activated electrical stimulation in children with perinatal stroke and hemiparesis: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Perinatal stroke (PS) causes most hemiparetic cerebral palsy (CP) and results in lifelong disability. Children with severe hemiparesis have limited rehabilitation options. Brain computer interface- activated functional electrical stimulation (BCI-FES) of target muscles may enhance upper extremity function in hemiparetic adults. We conducted a pilot clinical trial to assess the safety and feasibility of BCI-FES in children with hemiparetic CP. Methods Thirteen participants (mean age = 12.2 years, 31% female) were recruited from a population-based cohort. Inclusion criteria were: (1) MRI-confirmed PS, (2) disabling hemiparetic CP, (3) age 6–18 years, (4) informed consent/assent. Those with neurological comorbidities or unstable epilepsy were excluded. Participants attended two BCI sessions: training and rehabilitation. They wore an EEG-BCI headset and two forearm extensor stimulation electrodes. Participants’ imagination of wrist extension was classified on EEG, after which muscle stimulation and visual feedback were provided when the correct visualization was detected. Results No serious adverse events or dropouts occurred. The most common complaints were mild headache, headset discomfort and muscle fatigue. Children ranked the experience as comparable to a long car ride and none reported as unpleasant. Sessions lasted a mean of 87 min with 33 min of stimulation delivered. Mean classification accuracies were ( M = 78.78%, SD = 9.97) for training and ( M = 73.48, SD = 12.41) for rehabilitation. Mean Cohen’s Kappa across rehabilitation trials was M = 0.43, SD = 0.29, range = 0.019–1.00, suggesting BCI competency. Conclusion Brain computer interface-FES was well -tolerated and feasible in children with hemiparesis. This paves the way for clinical trials to optimize approaches and test efficacy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".