Teaching brain-machine interfaces as an alternative paradigm to neuroprosthetics control

Brain-machine interfaces (BMI) usually decode movement parameters from cortical activity to control neuroprostheses. This requires subjects to learn to modulate their brain activity to convey all necessary information, thus imposing natural limits on the complexity of tasks that can be performed. Here we demonstrate an alternative and complementary BMI paradigm that overcomes that limitation by decoding cognitive brain signals associated with monitoring processes relevant for achieving goals. In our approach the neuroprosthesis executes actions that the subject evaluates as erroneous or correct, and exploits the brain correlates of this assessment to learn suitable motor behaviours. Results show that, after a short user’s training period, this teaching BMI paradigm operated three different neuroprostheses and generalized across several targets. Our results further support that these error-related signals reflect a task-independent monitoring mechanism in the brain, making this teaching paradigm scalable. We anticipate this BMI approach to become a key component of any neuroprosthesis that mimics natural motor control as it enables continuous adaptation in the absence of explicit information about goals. Furthermore, our paradigm can seamlessly incorporate other cognitive signals and conventional neuroprosthetic approaches, invasive or non-invasive, to enlarge the range and complexity of tasks that can be accomplished.

[1]  W. Walter,et al.  Contingent Negative Variation : An Electric Sign of Sensori-Motor Association and Expectancy in the Human Brain , 1964, Nature.

[2]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[3]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  EEG-based communication: presence of an error potential , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[4]  J. Hohnsbein,et al.  ERP components on reaction errors and their functional significance: a tutorial , 2000, Biological Psychology.

[5]  P. Jurák,et al.  Error processing – evidence from intracerebral ERP recordings , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  David M. Santucci,et al.  Learning to Control a Brain–Machine Interface for Reaching and Grasping by Primates , 2003, PLoS biology.

[7]  José del R. Millán,et al.  Noninvasive brain-actuated control of a mobile robot by human EEG , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  R. Andersen,et al.  Cognitive Control Signals for Neural Prosthetics , 2004, Science.

[9]  S. Scott Optimal feedback control and the neural basis of volitional motor control , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[10]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Modulation of activity in medial frontal and motor cortices during error observation , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[11]  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.

[12]  I. Wickelgren Monkey See, Monkey Think About Doing , 2004, Science.

[13]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[14]  Byron M. Yu,et al.  A high-performance brain–computer interface , 2006, Nature.

[15]  José del R. Millán,et al.  Error-Related EEG Potentials Generated During Simulated Brain–Computer Interaction , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[16]  José del R. Millán,et al.  Simultaneous Real-Time Detection of Motor Imagery and Error-Related Potentials for Improved BCI Accuracy , 2008 .

[17]  C. Braun,et al.  Hand Movement Direction Decoded from MEG and EEG , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  C. Mehring,et al.  Differential Representation of Arm Movement Direction in Relation to Cortical Anatomy and Function , 2008 .

[19]  Igor A. Lavrov,et al.  Transformation of nonfunctional spinal circuits into functional states after the loss of brain input , 2009, Nature Neuroscience.

[20]  José Carlos Príncipe,et al.  Coadaptive Brain–Machine Interface via Reinforcement Learning , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[21]  R Chavarriaga,et al.  Learning From EEG Error-Related Potentials in Noninvasive Brain-Computer Interfaces , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[22]  Luis Montesano,et al.  Single trial recognition of error-related potentials during observation of robot operation , 2010, 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology.

[23]  G. Kreiman,et al.  Internally Generated Preactivation of Single Neurons in Human Medial Frontal Cortex Predicts Volition , 2011, Neuron.

[24]  J. Millán,et al.  Spatio-temporal filtering for EEG error related potentials. , 2011 .

[25]  Justin C. Sanchez,et al.  A Symbiotic Brain-Machine Interface through Value-Based Decision Making , 2011, PloS one.

[26]  John P. Cunningham,et al.  A High-Performance Neural Prosthesis Enabled by Control Algorithm Design , 2012, Nature Neuroscience.

[27]  Nicolas Y. Masse,et al.  Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm , 2012, Nature.

[28]  Wolfgang Rosenstiel,et al.  Online use of error-related potentials in healthy users and people with severe motor impairment increases performance of a P300-BCI , 2012, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[29]  Andreas Schulze-Bonhage,et al.  Error-related electrocorticographic activity in humans during continuous movements , 2012, Journal of neural engineering.

[30]  J. M. Carmena,et al.  Closed-Loop Decoder Adaptation on Intermediate Time-Scales Facilitates Rapid BMI Performance Improvements Independent of Decoder Initialization Conditions , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[31]  Tayfun Gürel,et al.  Unsupervised Adaptation of Brain-Machine Interface Decoders , 2012, Front. Neurosci..

[32]  Marco Wiering,et al.  Reinforcement Learning , 2014, Adaptation, Learning, and Optimization.

[33]  L. Miller,et al.  Restoration of grasp following paralysis through brain-controlled stimulation of muscles , 2012, Nature.

[34]  J. Millán,et al.  Single trial analysis of slow cortical potentials: a study on anticipation related potentials , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.

[35]  A. Schwartz,et al.  High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia , 2013, The Lancet.

[36]  Iñaki Iturrate,et al.  Shared-control brain-computer interface for a two dimensional reaching task using EEG error-related potentials , 2013, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[37]  R Chavarriaga,et al.  Latency correction of event-related potentials between different experimental protocols. , 2014, Journal of neural engineering.

[38]  Ricardo Chavarriaga,et al.  Errare machinale est: the use of error-related potentials in brain-machine interfaces , 2014, Front. Neurosci..

[39]  Adrian G. Fischer,et al.  Neural mechanisms and temporal dynamics of performance monitoring , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[40]  M. Frank,et al.  Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  Ricardo Chavarriaga,et al.  Latency correction of error-related potentials reduces BCI calibration time , 2014 .

[42]  R. Andersen,et al.  Decoding motor imagery from the posterior parietal cortex of a tetraplegic human , 2015, Science.