Brain–computer interface technology as a tool to augment plasticity and outcomes for neurological rehabilitation

Brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) are a rehabilitation tool for tetraplegic patients that aim to improve quality of life by augmenting communication, control of the environment, and self‐care. The neurobiology of both rehabilitation and BCI control depends upon learning to modify the efficacy of spared neural ensembles that represent movement, sensation and cognition through progressive practice with feedback and reward. To serve patients, BCI systems must become safe, reliable, cosmetically acceptable, quickly mastered with minimal ongoing technical support, and highly accurate even in the face of mental distractions and the uncontrolled environment beyond a laboratory. BCI technologies may raise ethical concerns if their availability affects the decisions of patients who become locked‐in with brain stem stroke or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis to be sustained with ventilator support. If BCI technology becomes flexible and affordable, volitional control of cortical signals could be employed for the rehabilitation of motor and cognitive impairments in hemiplegic or paraplegic patients by offering on‐line feedback about cortical activity associated with mental practice, motor intention, and other neural recruitment strategies during progressive task‐oriented practice. Clinical trials with measures of quality of life will be necessary to demonstrate the value of near‐term and future BCI applications.

[1]  S. Meagher Instant neural control of a movement signal , 2002 .

[2]  Gary Dudley,et al.  Methods for a Randomized Trial of Weight-Supported Treadmill Training Versus Conventional Training for Walking During Inpatient Rehabilitation after Incomplete Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury , 2003, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[3]  The neurobiology of rehabilitation , 2003 .

[4]  J. P. Miller,et al.  Methods for a Multisite Randomized Trial to Investigate the Effect of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy in Improving Upper Extremity Function among Adults Recovering from a Cerebrovascular Stroke , 2003, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[5]  Miguel A. L. Nicolelis,et al.  Brain–machine interfaces to restore motor function and probe neural circuits , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[6]  B. Dobkin Neurobiology of Rehabilitation , 2004, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Roger P. Woods,et al.  Ankle dorsiflexion as an fMRI paradigm to assay motor control for walking during rehabilitation , 2004, NeuroImage.

[8]  Wolfgang Grodd,et al.  Principles of a brain-computer interface (BCI) based on real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  Jonathan R Wolpaw,et al.  Control of a two-dimensional movement signal by a noninvasive brain-computer interface in humans. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  B. Dobkin,et al.  Immediate and Long-Term Changes in Corticomotor Output in Response to Rehabilitation: Correlation with Functional Improvements in Chronic Stroke , 2004, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[11]  E. Field-Fote,et al.  Massed Practice versus Massed Practice with Stimulation: Effects on Upper Extremity Function and Cortical Plasticity in Individuals with Incomplete Cervical Spinal Cord Injury , 2005, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[12]  B. Dobkin Rehabilitation and Functional Neuroimaging Dose-Response Trajectories for Clinical Trials , 2005, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[13]  Jean-Claude Baron,et al.  The Potential for Utilizing the “Mirror Neurone System” to Enhance Recovery of the Severely Affected Upper Limb Early after Stroke: A Review and Hypothesis , 2005, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[14]  Thilo Hinterberger,et al.  An Auditory Brain-Computer Interface Based on the Self-Regulation of Slow Cortical Potentials , 2005, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[15]  J. Williamson,et al.  Changes in Supraspinal Activation Patterns following Robotic Locomotor Therapy in Motor-Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury , 2005, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[16]  Niels Birbaumer,et al.  Severity of Depressive Symptoms and Quality of Life in Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis , 2005, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[17]  Nikolaus Weiskopf,et al.  Neuronal mechanisms underlying control of a brain–computer interface , 2005, The European journal of neuroscience.

[18]  A. Karim,et al.  Neural Internet: Web Surfing with Brain Potentials for the Completely Paralyzed , 2006, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[19]  J.R. Wolpaw,et al.  BCI meeting 2005-workshop on signals and recording methods , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[20]  U. Ziemann,et al.  Pharmacological Modulation of Plasticity in the Human Motor Cortex , 2006, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[21]  E. Fetz,et al.  The neurochip BCI: towards a neural prosthesis for upper limb function , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[22]  E. Donchin,et al.  A P300-based brain–computer interface: Initial tests by ALS patients , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[23]  B. Dobkin,et al.  Cellular Transplants in China: Observational Study from the Largest Human Experiment in Chronic Spinal Cord Injury , 2006, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[24]  Jon A. Mukand,et al.  Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia , 2006, Nature.

[25]  B. Dobkin,et al.  Motor Cortex Activation During Treatment May Predict Therapeutic Gains in Paretic Hand Function After Stroke , 2006, Stroke.

[26]  Lawrence H. Phillips,et al.  Communicating with the “locked-in” patient , 2006, Neurology.

[27]  B. Dobkin Behavioral, Temporal, and Spatial Targets for Cellular Transplants as Adjuncts to Rehabilitation for Stroke , 2007, Stroke.