Talk:Brain–computer interface

Refrences: Ethical Considerations section

I don’t understand how to do the referencing function, but here’s at least a few direct examples of the ethical considerations being discussed: In the Star Trek NG episode “The Game” (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Ktarian_game), a non-invasive BCI is used in an attempt to gain control of USS ENTERPRISE; In the role playing game Shadowrun, invasive BCI are used to control computers in a virtual-reality like environment- Where they can be killed. This was explored a second time on the X-FILES, in which a VR character comes to life and starts killing every male in the game (including the ability to build her own M-1 Abrams). Robert A. HEINLEIN mentions the issue in passing and indirectly in “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.” Arthur C CLARK explores the issue of overly intelligent computers in “2ØØ1” (which was the reason such systems were never developed according to HEINLEIN'S TMIAHM).

You’re welcome. Next time do your own damned homework. 71.34.68.186 (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Andering REDDSON

External Links section: Policies on adding researchers, articles and universities

To maintain the quality of the article, prevent linkspam and keep the entry at manageable length a few policies have been formulated for the organisation, portals and articles, and researchers link subsections. These policies are embedded in the article as comments but I'm reproducing them here for all to see:

External links Organisations

Please refrain from adding universtity listings in this section. To keep the article a manageable size, the list is contained in Neural Engineering#Neural Engineering Labs, so please add any entries there. Please also refrain from adding BCI device companies and the like that weren't important enough to get a mention in the text.

Based on this comment I'm removing the section of random university names currently under commercialization. (I don't know why it's there, but here's what it says:

American University in Cairo University of Wisconsin at Madison University of California San Diego Washington University in St. Louis Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia State University Fondazione Santa Lucia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riedl (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

External Links Researchers

Because of the potentially huge number of BCI researchers, please only add a new entry if the researcher is one of the leading names in the field who is already mentioned in the text above. Resarchers mentioned only in the in-line references do not qualify.

External Links Portals and articles

When inserting a reference in this section please use the following format:

• title of article or name of website, name of publication in italics, date (UK format:day, month, year), brief description of article, date loaded.

Incorrectly formated entries may be reverted.

Thanks for your cooperation.--Saganaki- 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Computer->brain interface

Wikipedia seems to lack information about this. We have Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation, but what about artificially inducing thoughts or feelings? I recall reading that it's possible to artificially induce the feeling of Deja Vu. Here's something: [1]. CannibalSmith (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Factual Error?

Article states "ECoG technologies were first trialed in humans in 2004 by Eric Leuthardt and Daniel Moran from Washington University in St Louis." The UM-DBI project did this long before that (2000ish?). Their website: link 141.214.17.17 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Early comments

I wrote the first definition for "direct mind-computer interface" and subsequently edited it. Both of which I did before having a log in to Wikipedia.

So, I thought I'd just post this to take credit/blame for the page, rather than leaving it be completely anonymous.

~galvorn

If you still have the same IP, you can actually have the edits re-assigned to your new username. Instructions are on the help pages. --FleaPlus 16:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

It was really good work man. It was just your original article talked about mind and consciousness as well as brain and computers. The former two topics are more in the realm of philosophy while the "feel" of your page was more in the realm of cybernetics, hence my redirect for the sake of accuracy. Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting link on a company that does something similar: Brain Actuated Technologies, Inc.

BCI Competitions Section?

Dear people, I'm new to Wiki and slightly frightened to edit the stuff. I thought we should have something on the BCI Competition since it enables the general people to get involved in BCI activities. Though not as heavy as the research groups, it allows us to get a feel of what BCI people are doing in the labs and helps us appreciate the complexities. Here's what I had written, please add it if you think appropriate:

BCI's are generally expensive to develop or build. They may require big research grants, expensive equipment and strict procedures to ensure safety of subjects. This makes BCIs a difficult proposition for students, researchers, and hobbyists. To encourage more widespread BCI research, some of the major BCI research groups have been conducting a series of BCI Competitions beginning with the year 2001. There have been three competitions conducted so far and there seems to be enough enthusiasm in the community to hold more competitions in the future. These competitions have been gaining increasing participation from a wide range of people including researchers, students and enthusiasts. The BCI Competitions have made it possible to validate multiple methods, techniques and algorithms effectively.

The BCI Competitions have enabled a way for practically everyone to get involved, experiment and contribute towards BCI research. They enable people to work on real data and use their own methods and techniques to process it. As a reward for having generated good results, the organisers provide an opportunity to the winners of these competitions to publish their methods in scientific journals.

http://ida.first.fhg.de/projects/bci/competition_iii/index.html BCI Competition III http://ida.first.fraunhofer.de/projects/bci/competition/ BCI Competition II http://liinc.bme.columbia.edu/competition.htm BCI Competition I

59.161.14.50 18:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Archis

Redirect and massive edits

So I've totally reworked this section. It was originally "direct mind-computer interface", but that is inherently misleading. The original article spoke about interfacing mind and consciousness with machines, which is entirely different from the crux of the article, which was interfacing brains and computers. In the theory of mind, mind and brain are not interchangeable. Since BCIs are about practical interfaces and not theory, and since the original article references these practical interfaces, I redirected everything to this new article.

I have included new links citing the new research I mentioned in this article, and uploaded a public domain image from a ground-breaking PloS article published in 2003 demonstrating a BCI. I've also tried to conform to Wikipedia's style. Any input would be greatly appreciated however, since today is my first day at this Wiki thing, and I may have over-stepped my bounds.

I also left a comment in neuro cybernetics and computational neuroscience, as someone was suggesting those two topics merge. I disagree with that idea and I suggest neuro cybernetics merge with this article (or vice versa).

Semiconscious 07:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work. - Omegatron 13:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks man. I appreciate the feedback. Any suggestions for a newbie, since this is the style I will probably build from? Semiconscious 19:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it's great. If people don't like something they will fix it for you. :-) Just watch articles you have edited and see what people change (like my nitpicking of this). Can you check over Electroencephalography? Or you could take your newcomer enthusiasm over to neurofeedback. It needs to be cleaned up... - Omegatron 23:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Neuroprosthetics

I think this, as well as cyberware and brain implant should be merged into neuroprosthetics, an area of neuroscience.--Nectarflowed ^T 28 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)

BCI isn't just about replacing missing body parts (which is literally what a prosthesis is) but about augmenting existing systems. Neuroprosthetics is relevant to the medical applications of neuroscience, whereas BCI goes beyond that. If I add a device either implanted in my brain or non-invasively that allows me to photograph what my eyes are seeing and upload it to a computer, that is not a prosthesis. Though you are on to an interesting topic; neuroprosthetics should be expanded. These articles should not be merged however. That would be like suggesting that skin graft be merged with Bulletproof vest because they both protect a person's organs (and I do not mean this as hyperbole). Semiconscious 28 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Popular usage and some dictionaries tend to define prosthetics solely as bodily replacement, but it looks like most dictionaries define it as artificial parts, not necessarily replacement parts. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines prosthetics as "The branch of medicine or surgery that deals with the production and application of artificial body parts."

I've seen prosthetics used to refer to any device used to augment human abilities, such as clothing, or a notepad being referred to as a memory prosthesis, but I see what you mean, that your vision example isn't necessarily an augmentation of our visual system. Perhaps then just brain implant and cyberware should be merged into neuroprosthetics.--Nectarflowed ^T 28 June 2005 21:06 (UTC)

This is purely a semantic argument. Since this field isn't yet established, which term will be the one to "win out" so to speak? Cyberware and Brain implant sound more as though they should be a part of Brain-computer interface. Neuroprosthetics is to BCI as Prosthetics is to Orthosis. Semiconscious 28 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)

I would think that Cyberwear and BCI should somehow be displayed together since they show a more realistic feature of what BCI is about. Prosthetics is about replacing what is suppose to be there or what has been taken away through freak cause. I would also like to see the addition of neuroscience because BCI has to do with neuroscience anoligical state being converted into digital state. This would take the use of cyberwear and BCI technology. --Cyberman 07:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Brain-Computer Interface Possibilities

1. Could it be possible to create a new type of secondary storage for humans instead of the analog paper and pen? From such risen idea could learning be faster and accessed quicker? Would the learning process to obtain information faster also be compelled to help lead brain-computer interface technology into a new direction?

2. Would such advancement when helping secondary memory actually evolve the human mind into finding cures and answers to life's riddles much quicker?--Cyberman 06:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Maybe. Artificial hippocampuses have been created and are being tested on rats right now. This may lead to memory "enhancement", as the hippocampus is the area of the brain that seems to encode long-term memories. This may some day lead to uploading kung fu! :)

2. This is totally a philosophical question. I mean, if you enhance memory, then theoretically one would be able to access more information more quickly, right? Humans are creatures that identify and study patterns. Creating a way to store and access different patterns more quickly may lead to faster advancement I guess. This is purely philosophical speculation, so please don't quote me on this. Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, would anyone happen to have an internet source or weblink/video to display the cursor usage of the primate?

I'll contact Jose Carmena and see if I can't get the video and upload it here. Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I've been studying brain neuroscience little by little. I've wondered about the hippocampus since I've been doing research on it for the past week or so. From studying it I stumbled on the term BCI which was the main reason I was studying this field, I wondered if it had been created and luckily I was correct. I did wonder if there way a way to advance that part of the brain. I sure wonder what will happen with the labrats, however I think such an animal wouldn't be adequate enough to find use for such brain potential seeing as how it doesn't have a language basis and scales of aritmetic reasoning that have developed for years on many scales like us humans. --Cyberman 07:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

On another note, the main reason I have become interested in this particular field was because I have been wondering for the longest time, "If humans live so long, and can only learn so fast, what to do to go further?" I figured some type of nanotechnological, cybernetic, or biomedical science to enhance the lifespan would be a nice thing, but even those simple things couldn't be achieved in the short amount of lifespan. That's why i figured obtaining a quick learning and memory process would be the fastest way to go about things because there would be more brainpower to calculate and determine how to create those cybernetic attachments to the human body so that lifespan would be increased. I think BCI is going to be quite the amazing thing to look at within the next few years. --Cyberman 07:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not really BCI, is it? That's more mind uploading. - Omegatron 13:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really talk about mind uploading, I'm talking about enhanced memory through secondary storage. I'll discuss mind uploading at that wikipage. --Cyberman 22:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

On second thought after coming to this a few hours later, I think I realize your POV. It would be mind uploading if you uploaded from the secondary storage into the main storage (brain). The whole idea of in that pathway is that it is hidden and needs to be accessed and thus uploaded to an area for access. I would hope that it would be a type of active memory that wouldn't need such uploading. Of course, the idea that all memory is uploaded from somewhere is true. I'm not very intelligent in neuroscience although it be the medical field in which I attempt to go into while stuck in Illinois. I would think that yes, in a way it's mind uploading. But not exactly the sci-fi version that you Omegatron and Semiconscious are talking about which includes uploading kung fu from a virtual reality from a computer database into an analog mind. I guess one could see the subconscience as the secondary memory storage, but I would hope to have something more accessable on command. What would be more amazing is a device that allows us to tap into that area on command.

Perhaps such a thing in that boundary wouldn't require programming and just routing and a simple entry command. Oooh @_@ ^_^ --Cyberman 03:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Removed section

Non-Invasive Brain Machine Interface

Many devices using a non-invasive carrier to remotely induce neural firings and remotely monitor the neural cortex have been developed.

• Microwaves were amongs the first carriers used in remote receiverless wireless voice transmission applications, based on the well studied Frey effect. An example is the Flanagan GP. Patent #3393279 “Nervous System Excitation Device” USPTO granted 7/16/68.

• Ultrasounds although of shorter practical range have also been used such as the Sony Corporation Patent #6,729,337 virtual reality device, a system that achieves probably for the first time the remote generation of multiple sens within the neural cortex : visual, audio, taste, smell and touch.

Reason for removal

• The Frey effect doesn't constitute a direct BCI, as only acoustic phenomena are simulated.
• If the Sony stuff exists only as patent application, let's wait for an implementation or at least a publication in some IEEE journal or the like.

Pjacobi 13:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• It seems the last user put their changes back without discussing it in here. Normally I would remove them pending discussion, but in this instance, I believe that user is in the right. This article is about interfaces between the brain and computers. Just because only a single modality is stimulated does not mean it shouldn't be included. Most of the article focuses on motor interfaces. I think it's nice to have a little piece on interactions going in the other direction. Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Non-Invasive Brain Machine Interface

Many devices using a non-invasive carrier to remotely induce neural firings and remotely monitor the neural cortex have been developed.

• Microwaves were amongs the first carriers used in remote receiverless wireless voice transmission applications, based on the well studied Frey effect. An example is the Flanagan GP. Patent #3393279 “Nervous System Excitation Device” USPTO granted 7/16/68.

Moreover, sensations such as dizziness, headaches and pins and needles have been succecefully induced in experimental subjects, from a distance of hundred of meters from the transmitter, as reported by Allan H. Frey as early as 1961.

Induction of vertigo sensation are used in devices for scaring birds away from aircraft near airfields by microwaves (Kreithen ML. Patent #5774088 “Method and system for warning birds of hazards” USPTO granted 6/30/98).

The remote monitoring of neural activity can also be achieved with the use of a carrier like microwaves, such as the many see through wall devices, able to detect heartbeats, respiratory and other muscular activities. The EMF carrier is first send toward the target then recorded after the return. The difference is then calculated. The Time Domain Corporation's detector uses for instances coded ultra wideband (UWB) pulses ( 10 million pulses per second ) to penetrate most common building materials.

• Ultrasounds although of shorter practical range have also been proposed such as the Thomas P. Dawson Sony Corporation Patent #6,729,337 virtual reality device, a system that achieves probably for the first time the remote generation of multiple sens within the neural cortex : visual, audio, taste, smell and touch.

Focused short and intense ultrasounds are able to affect nerve structures directly and selectively, causing direct nerve stimulations that generate somatic sensations of touch, warmness, coldness, and pain. The same principle is also used for the Tactile Feeling Display, developed by the University of Tokyo.

Recent studies by the Univerity of Nottingham Medical School, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology laboratory have shown that rats exposed to a 20kHz ultrasound display fight behaviour similar to that seen following stimulation of brain regions associated with anxiety and defence. Therefore, this technique offers the potential of generating unconditioned aversive behaviour in rats in a non invasive way.

Removed again

I removed (again) an ever larger set of claims [2] for various reasons.

• Citing patent applications as references. Yikes, we aren't a mirror of USPTO server. And only a very small percentage of patent applications sees application. If this is the onyl source, it's not encyclopedic.
• Military applications (inducing dizziness, etc). This just doesn't fit the BCI definition
• Remote sensing of cortical activity. This would be a very welcome invention in the medical field, making it much easier to record EEGs. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So, where's your reference?

Pjacobi 15:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

It is simply non sensical to totally ignore Non-Invasive Brain Machine Interfaces in a Brain-computer interface entry. There is more than a use in medical imagery.--203.198.242.116 12:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not answer to my questions. Where are the references for remote cortex recordings? Why should "inducing dizziness" considered to be an interface. ... -Pjacobi 12:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The term non-invasive BCI is problematic since that term is often used to refer to EEG-based BCIs - such as those being developed by the Wadsworth group of Albany, NY. Based on this definition of non-invasive BCI I would favor inclusion of a section on the topic. --Ben Houston 00:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Wow quite a debate here! Perhaps we could come up with some sort of page redirection for non-invasive BCIs. It seems there are enough to warrant a separate page. I know of one "Brain Attenuation Technology" by a company named Cyberlink. I don't know if it the same Cyberlink that produces PowerDVD, but I saw it on a doccie and took note. Dessydes 01:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Possibly useful link

Someone added a link to this article to Psychotronics, but a) they linked to some sort of reprinter rather than to the original article, and b) it wasn't relevant to psychotronics except by a newly added "definition" unsupported by any sources. It would be relevant here, but it might be already covered here; I leave it to the expertise of editors here: http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=265991 -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-Invasive BCIs

I'm putting this here, because non-invasive BCIs cannot just be ignored, just because some Matrix fans decide so. I can put enough information in the following paragraph to warrant a redirect to Direct Brain Interface, or a rethought about BCIs, or enough to create a stub. Earlier on in the page I put a commment that was simply ignored. Since then I've seen a different documentary, with enough info for me to even correct some of my mistakes. The name of the company is: Brain Accentuated Technologies, its president is Andrew Junker, and the name of the device is (Cyberlink) Brain Fingers. Now let's see how you Johnny Mnemonic phreaks try to put this idea down again. Dessydes 14:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe many of the objections are not to non-invasive BCIs per-se, but rather to the inclusion of scientificly dubious topics like ultrasound, microwave and Frey effect "BCIs". The Brainfingers product you mention seems appropriate for inclusion with the caveat that it uses "... lateral eye movements ... [and] ... facial muscle activity" in addition to alpha and beta waves. I'm not disputing the theraputic utility of such a device for improving the quality of life for persons with disabilities, but it's not purely a BCI. joeyo 20:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

0.5 Nom

This article was nominated for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 I failed this article because it's way too technical for the normal reader, I didn't understand the article much, please simplfy for a normal reader. Refs are a mess as well, and it's fails in the importance factor as well. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Theme in fiction" section

The bibliography is OK, but the textual part of this section needs work. It's a random selection of not especially notable stories and games. We should probably drop the extended Barnes & Shadowrun examples (but put them briefly in the list below), start the section with talk about some of the earliest brain-computer interface fiction (True Names by Vernor Vinge is the earliest I can think of rigth now, but I think earlier ones exist), and lead into the Matrix movies and other more notable recent examples at the end of the section, before the bibliography. Can anyone suggest a better plan, or more specifics about particularly early and notable examples?

Also, maybe the list should be in chronological order of publication rather than by author. --Jim Henry 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be great if you edited this section Jim. It looks like it has gradually grown over time but it really needs to be more than just a list of authors.--Saganaki- 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps it would be a good idea just to remove this section entirely and put a link to the Brain implant Theme in Fiction section? It is much better developed and is always going to overlap with BCIs..--Saganaki- 04:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed, added link --Saganaki- 03:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with brain computer interface

I suggest we merge the brain implants page into the BCI page because brain implants are a subset of BCI research. Brain implants and non-invasive imaging/EEG type techniques seem to be the two main thrusts of BCI research so there's plenty of scope for duplication between the BCI and the implants page. The BCI page also has a far larger amount of up-to-date content although I'd say there's scope to make the language more user friendly and improve the formatting. There's also plenty of material in the brain implants page that's of dubious provinance and could be improved or purged. Thanks, Saganaki-. ^{Ello Ello}, 6 September 2006.

Now think merger is a bad idea after discussion with other editors. There are non-BCI implants such as epilepsy pacemakers etc.--Saganaki- 03:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Orphan References

The article had a huge number of papers which were not referenced in the text. I've removed these orphan references as I think they are unlikely to be useful to a lay audience but have pasted them below in case they could be useful in the future. --Saganaki- 13:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved these to the transcranial-stimulation article as most appear relevant to that article.--Saganaki- 03:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Addressing issues outlined in 0.5 Nom

I've attempted to address some of the issues mentioned by Jaranda above why the article didn't make inclusion in wiki 0.5:

• Amalgamated references (and put in alphabetical order)
• Edits to improve text flow
• Edits to make article less technical while preserving the feel of the content

I'd also like to propose a working classifcation of BCI and neuroprosthesis:

• Invasive BCI (for example, Matt Nagel)
• Non-invasive BCI (for example, use of EEG)
• BCI devices that use neural tissue, but are not implanted in a living organism as a whole. (Think research growing networks in neurons in test environments, etc.)
• Neuroprosthesis: Implants which are linked to the nervous system but not directly to the brain (for example, Cochlear and retinal implants). This seems to be the definition employed by the neuroprosthetics wiki. It's a massive topic all on its own and deserves its own Wiki. Note, that there is some vision-related work which I would consider a BCI because the device is embedded in the brain (see Jens Neumann for example).

Good article status

What I think still needs to be done is:

• Merger with brain implants (reasons explained above).

Decided against this idea after discussion with other users. There are non-BCI implants such as epilepsy pacemakers etc.--Saganaki- 03:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Introduction - needs to explain why BCI is such a significant technology.

Made changes. Keen to hear if this heading in the right direction though.--Saganaki- 11:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Animal research - updated and edited.

Done

• Neuroprosthetics section - this is a mess and material in this section should probably be combined in other headings. The material in this section also seems to be at odds with the Neuroprosthetics Wiki itself, which deals with devices attached to the nervous system like Cochlea implants .

Cleaned up --Saganaki- 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Human invasive and non-invasive sections - there has been a huge amount of research in the last few years that needs adding to these sections, for example Jens Neumann.

Done --Saganaki- 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• New section - (working title BCI in the test-tube?). Dealing with neurons linked to devices outside living organisms.

Added, needs populating --Saganaki- 11:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Populated --Saganaki- 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• BCI in fiction section - needs editing to be turned into a potted history of BCI in fiction rather than just a list of authors .

Suggest removing this section entirely and put a link to the Brain implant Fiction section. --Saganaki- 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed, replaced with link. --Saganaki- 03:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• References - there are more references than text on the subject! Someone who is far more knowledgeable than I needs to edit this so that it contains the top 10-15 papers relevant to BCI.

Removed orphan references --Saganaki- 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• External links - needs editing to provide a BCI primer for interested readers.

Done --Saganaki- 10:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Submmitted article for feedback. Removed broken wikilinks as suggested. Still to complete: source and add graphics. --Saganaki- 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Done

• Submitted article for Good Article status review (11 October) Saganaki- 03:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Got

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

• The only major problem is some pictures, most pictures dosn't have succinct and descriptive captions, Image:MiguelNicolelisActuator.jpg anit fair use for this article.

On Hold. _→AzaToth 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Passed _→AzaToth 12:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting to featured article status

BCI reached good article status. Congratulations to all contributors. Now opening this dicussion topic to figure out what needs to be done to get to featured article status. A few thoughts to kick things off (Saganaki- 12:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)):

• Thorough review of article by neuroscientist.
• Nitpicky formatting of references

Removal of Garrett Stanley ref

I removed the paragraph on neural coding studies by Garrett Stanley. There have been literally thousands of studies of neural encoding/decoding and information theory on neural tissue. This article focusses on using the brain to send instructional signals to a computer. Stanley's studies do not constitute sending such signals. Instead, they are examples of studies in which the form of the signals in the brain are studied using computers. --Animalresearcher 11:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and I've reverted the edit - please contact me on my talk page if you want to discuss. My reasoning is that the Garrett study was one of the first significant reported studies on neural encoding. Further I don't follow your logic on instructional signals - the article isn't focused on instructional signals, simply the interfacing of brain and computer. Otherwise we'd have to disregard all the open-loop BCI material and all the research on vision BCI. Cheers Saganaki- 11:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of one-way vs two-way BCIs

I think it is unnecessary to focus on what one and two way BCIs are so soon in the article, and mentioning that nobody has ever done a two-way interface is even less interesting, since a two way BCI is just two one way BCIs... My point is that if you can do one way interfaces both to and from the brain, then you can do two way aswell. The fact that nobody has found it necessary or even interesting to do so is not an important point.

--LarsHolmberg 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would this count as a successful two way BCI? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926696.100-rise-of-the-ratbrained-robots.html They are living brain cells which tell the robot which way to go and the robot sends distance information to the cells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.250.127 (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

no, as the article you reference doesn't refer to any kind of brain. The neurons in this case are simply acting as another means of computation, more of a biological computer than a brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.111.213 (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From where is this text dump?

I moved the following text to here since it seems like it's been taken directly from somewhere, and there is no link to exactly from where. It is full of reference numbers, but the proper references aren't included at bottom. Please include the proper reference for each number to reinsert in article:

The experimental approach was developed based on current understanding of sensorimotor rhythms and on the methodology of current EEG-based BCIs that use these rhythms.[28] Sensorimotor rhythms comprise mu (8-12 Hz), beta (18–26 Hz), and gamma (>30 Hz) oscillations[29-31]. As mentioned earlier, the lower frequencies of mu and beta are thought to be produced by thalamocortical circuits and they change in amplitude in association with actual or imagined movements [32-35]. Higher frequencies (> 30 Hz) are thought to be produced by smaller cortical assemblies [36]. BCIs based on EEG oscillations have focused exclusively on mu and beta rhythms because gamma rhythms are inconspicuous at the scalp [37]. In contrast, gamma rhythms as well as mu and beta rhythms are prominent in ECoG during movements [34-37].

Until recently, the signal was assumed to be very similar to that of EEG in regards to the amount and type of information it could convey. This, however, was not true; the signal itself is quite different. The ECoG signal is much more robust compared to EEG signal: its magnitude is typically five times larger (0.05 - 1.0 versus 0.01-0.2 mV for EEG) [38], its spatial resolution as it relates to electrode spacing is much finer (0.125 versus 3.0 cm for EEG)[39, 40], and its frequency bandwidth is significantly higher (0-200 Hz versus 0- 40 Hz for EEG). When analyzed on a functional level many studies have revealed that higher frequency bandwidths, unavailable to EEG methods, carry highly specific and anatomically focal information about cortical processing [41-44]. ECoG’s superior frequency range is attributable to two factors. First, the capacitance of cell membranes of the overlying tissue combined with their intrinsic electrical resistance constitutes a low-pass (RC) filter that largely eliminates higher frequencies from the EEG [40]. Second, higher frequencies tend to be produced by smaller cortical assemblies (38). Thus, they are more prominent at electrodes that are closer to cortex than EEG electrodes and thereby achieve higher spatial resolution [40].

Recent studies have cogently demonstrated its effectiveness as a signal in BCI application. Leuthardt et al. in 2004 revealed the first use of ECoG in closed loop control. Over brief training periods of 3-24 min, four patients mastered control and achieved success rates of 74-100% in one-dimensional tasks. In additional experiments, the same group found that ECoG signals at frequencies up to 180 Hz accurately reflected the direction of two-dimensional joystick movements [45]. Soon after Schalk, et al. in 2004 demonstrates two dimensional online control using independent signals at high frequencies inconspicuous to that appreciable by EEG [46]. Additionally, Leuthardt et al. in 2005 demonstrated that ECoG control using signal from the epidural space was also possible [47]. All these studies combined show the ECoG signal to carry a high level of specific cortical information which can allow the user to gain control very rapidly. Beyond the technical demonstration of ECoG BCI feasibility, there is some pathologic and clinical evidence to support the implant viability of subdural based devices. There is an extensive body of literature investigating the tissue response to intraparenchymal cortical electrodes and their associated signal prohibitive reactive gliotic sheaths [25, 26]. Though more limited, the studies that have been performed investigating non-penetrating subdural placed electrodes, however, have been more encouraging. In a cat and dog models, long term subdural implants showed minimal cortical or leptomeningeal tissue reaction while maintaining prolonged electrophysiologic recording [48-51]. In clinical studies the use of subdural electrodes as implants for motor cortex stimulation have been shown to be stable and effective implants for the treatment of chronic pain [52-54]. Additionally, preliminary work using the implantable Neuropace device for the purpose of long term subdural electrode monitoring for seizure identification and abortion has also been shown to be stable [55].

This deserves inclusion (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 24, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

• Too much of the information in this article is unsourced. There has been a request for citation outstanding for a month. Much of the article reads like a personal essay. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)