AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Journal of Neurorestoratology Article
PDF (929.2 KB)
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Review Article | Open Access

State-of-the-art non-invasive brain–computer interface for neural rehabilitation: A review

Miaomiao Zhuang1,5,§, Qingheng Wu2,5,§, Feng Wan3, Yong Hu4,5( )
Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha 410013, Hunan, China;
Department of Dentistry, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 211166, Jiangsu, China;
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Macau, Macau, China;
Shenzhen Key Laboratory for Innovative Technology in Orthopaedic Trauma, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518053, China;
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China

§ These authors contributed equally to this work.

Show Author Information

Abstract

Brain–computer interface (BCI) is a novel communication method between brain and machine. It enables signals from the human brain to influence or control external devices. Currently, much research interest is focused on the BCI-based neural rehabilitation of patients with motor and cognitive diseases. Over the decades, BCI has become an alternative treatment for motor and cognitive rehabilitation. Previous studies demonstrated the usefulness of BCI intervention in restoring motor function and recovery of the damaged brain. Electroencephalogram (EEG)-based BCI intervention could cast light on the mechanisms underlying neuroplasticity during upper limb recovery by providing feedback to the damaged brain. BCI could act as a useful tool to aid patients with daily communication and basic movement in severe motor loss cases like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Furthermore, recent findings have reported the therapeutic efficacy of BCI in people suffering from other diseases with different levels of motor impairment such as spastic cerebral palsy, neuropathic pain, etc. Besides motor functional recovery, BCI also plays its role in improving the behavior of patients with cognitive diseases like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The BCI-based neurofeedback training is focused on either reducing the ratio of theta and beta rhythm, or enabling the patients to regulate their own slow cortical potentials, and both have made progress in increasing attention and alertness. With summary of several clinical studies with strong evidence, we present cutting edge results from the clinical application of BCI in motor and cognitive diseases, including stroke, spinal cord injury, ALS, and ADHD.

Keywords

brain–computer interface (BCI)neural rehabilitationstrokespinal cord injury (SCI)amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

References

[1]
JJ Shih, DJ Krusienski, JR Wolpaw. Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012, 87(3): 268-279.
Crossref Google Scholar
[2]
JS Brumberg, A Nieto-Castanon, PR Kennedy, et al. Brain-computer interfaces for speech communication. Speech Commun. 2010, 52(4): 367-379.
Crossref Google Scholar
[3]
LR Hochberg, D Bacher, B Jarosiewicz, et al. Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature. 2012, 485(7398): 372-375.
Crossref Google Scholar
[4]
R Bertani, C Melegari, MC De Cola, et al. Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Neurol Sci. 2017, 38(9): 1561-1569.
Crossref Google Scholar
[5]
X Qian, BRY Loo, FX Castellanos, et al. Brain- computer-interface-based intervention re-normalizes brain functional network topology in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Transl Psychiatry. 2018, 8(1): 149.
Crossref Google Scholar
[6]
EJ Benjamin, MJ Blaha, SE Chiuve, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2017 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017, 135(10): e146-e603.
Crossref Google Scholar
[7]
A Curt, HJ van Hedel, D Klaus, et al. Recovery from a spinal cord injury: significance of compensation, neural plasticity, and repair. J Neurotrauma. 2008, 25(6): 677-685.
Crossref Google Scholar
[8]
F Pichiorri, G Morone, M Petti, et al. Brain-computer interface boosts motor imagery practice during stroke recovery. Ann Neurol. 2015, 77(5): 851-865.
Crossref Google Scholar
[9]
CG Lim, XWW Poh, SSD Fung, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a brain-computer interface based attention training program for ADHD. PLoS One. 2019, 14(5): e0216225.
Crossref Google Scholar
[10]
J Takahashi, A Yasumura, E Nakagawa, et al. Changes in negative and positive EEG shifts during slow cortical potential training in children with attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a preliminary investigation. Neuroreport. 2014, 25(8): 618-624.
Crossref Google Scholar
[11]
N Yoshida, Y Hashimoto, M Shikota, et al. Relief of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury by brain- computer interface training. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2016, 2: 16021.
Crossref Google Scholar
[12]
EV Friedrich, N Suttie, A Sivanathan, et al. Brain- computer interface game applications for combined neurofeedback and biofeedback treatment for children on the autism spectrum. Front Neuroeng. 2014, 7: 21.
Crossref Google Scholar
[13]
CG Lim, TS Lee, C Guan, et al. A brain-computer interface based attention training program for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. PLoS One. 2012, 7(10): e46692.
Crossref Google Scholar
[14]
B Hillard, AS El-Baz, L Sears, et al. Neurofeedback training aimed to improve focused attention and alertness in children with ADHD: a study of relative power of EEG rhythms using custom-made software application. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2013, 44(3): 193-202.
Crossref Google Scholar
[15]
AR Bakhshayesh, S Hänsch, A Wyschkon, et al. Neurofeedback in ADHD: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011, 20(9): 481-491.
Crossref Google Scholar
[16]
U Strehl, U Leins, G Goth, et al. Self-regulation of slow cortical potentials: a new treatment for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics. 2006, 118(5): e1530-e1540.
Crossref Google Scholar
[17]
F Lotte, L Bougrain, A Cichocki, et al. A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain-computer interfaces: a 10 year update. J Neural Eng. 2018, 15(3): 031005.
Crossref Google Scholar
[18]
A Bashashati, M Fatourechi, RK Ward, et al. A survey of signal processing algorithms in brain- computer interfaces based on electrical brain signals. J Neural Eng. 2007, 4(2): R32-R57.
Crossref Google Scholar
[19]
H Ramoser, J Müller-Gerking, G Pfurtscheller. Optimal spatial filtering of single trial EEG during imagined hand movement. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 2000, 8(4): 441-446.
Crossref Google Scholar
[20]
G Pfurtscheller, C Neuper. Motor imagery and direct brain-computer communication. Proc IEEE. 2001, 89(7): 1123-1134.
Crossref Google Scholar
[21]
F Lotte, M Congedo, A Lécuyer, et al. A review of classification algorithms for EEG-based brain-computer interfaces. J Neural Eng. 2007, 4(2): R1-R13.
Crossref Google Scholar
[22]
KR Müller, CW Anderson, GE Birch. Linear and nonlinear methods for brain-computer interfaces. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2003, 11(2): 165-169.
Crossref Google Scholar
[23]
R Rupp, A Kreilinger, M Rohm, et al. Development of a non-invasive, multifunctional grasp neuroprosthesis and its evaluation in an individual with a high spinal cord injury. In 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, San Diego, USA, 2012, pp 1835–1838.
Crossref
[24]
JR Wolpaw, N Birbaumer, DJ McFarland, et al. Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin Neurophysiol. 2002, 113(6): 767-791.
Crossref Google Scholar
[25]
DJ McFarland, J Daly, C Boulay, et al. Therapeutic applications of BCI technologies. Brain Comput Interfaces (Abingdon). 2017, 47(1/2): 37-52.
Crossref Google Scholar
[26]
R Béné, N Beck, B Vajda, et al. Interface providers in stroke neurorehabilitation. Period Biol, 2012, 114(3): 403-407.
Google Scholar
[27]
J Song, BM Young, Z Nigogosyan, et al. Characterizing relationships of DTI, fMRI, and motor recovery in stroke rehabilitation utilizing brain-computer interface technology. Front Neuroeng. 2014, 7: 31.
Crossref Google Scholar
[28]
J Song, VA Nair, BM Young, et al. DTI measures track and predict motor function outcomes in stroke rehabilitation utilizing BCI technology. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015, 9: 195.
Crossref Google Scholar
[29]
A Muralidharan, J Chae, DM Taylor. Extracting attempted hand movements from EEGs in people with complete hand paralysis following stroke. Front Neurosci. 2011, 5: 39.
Crossref Google Scholar
[30]
JE Huggins, C Guger, M Ziat, et al. Workshops of the Sixth International Brain–Computer Interface Meeting: brain–computer interfaces past, present, and future. Brain-Comput Interfaces. 2017, 4(1/2): 3-36.
Crossref Google Scholar
[31]
N Mrachacz-Kersting, N Jiang, AJ Stevenson, et al. Efficient neuroplasticity induction in chronic stroke patients by an associative brain-computer interface. J Neurophysiol. 2016, 115(3): 1410-1421.
Crossref Google Scholar
[32]
T Nierhaus, C Vidaurre, C Sannelli, et al. Immediate brain plasticity after one hour of brain-computer interface (BCI). J Physiol. 2019, in press, .
Crossref Google Scholar
[33]
JH Crosbie, SM McDonough, DH Gilmore, et al. The adjunctive role of mental practice in the rehabilitation of the upper limb after hemiplegic stroke: a pilot study. Clin Rehabil. 2004, 18(1): 60-68.
Crossref Google Scholar
[34]
RI Carino-Escobar, P Carrillo-Mora, R Valdés-Cristerna, et al. Longitudinal analysis of stroke patients’ brain rhythms during an intervention with a brain-computer interface. Neural Plast. 2019, 2019: 7084618.
Crossref Google Scholar
[35]
A Vourvopoulos, OM Pardo, S Lefebvre, et al. Effects of a brain-computer interface with virtual reality (VR) neurofeedback: a pilot study in chronic stroke patients. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019, 13: 210.
Crossref Google Scholar
[36]
J Toppi, D Mattia, A Anzolin, et al. Time varying effective connectivity for describing brain network changes induced by a memory rehabilitation treatment. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014, 2014: 6786-6789.
Crossref Google Scholar
[37]
ES Lawrence, C Coshall, R Dundas, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of acute stroke impairments and disability in a multiethnic population. Stroke. 2001, 32(6): 1279-1284.
Crossref Google Scholar
[38]
CE Lang, JA Beebe. Relating movement control at 9 upper extremity segments to loss of hand function in people with chronic hemiparesis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007, 21(3): 279-291.
Crossref Google Scholar
[39]
P Langhorne, F Coupar, A Pollock. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009, 8(8): 741-754.
Crossref Google Scholar
[40]
RJ Marino, JF Ditunno Jr, WH Donovan, et al. Neurologic recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury: data from the Model Spinal Cord Injury Systems. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999, 80(11): 1391-1396.
Crossref Google Scholar
[41]
AH Do, PT Wang, CE King, et al. Brain-computer interface controlled robotic gait orthosis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013, 10: 111.
Crossref Google Scholar
[42]
JL Collinger, B Wodlinger, JE Downey, et al. High- performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet. 2013, 381(9866): 557-564.
Crossref Google Scholar
[43]
T Aflalo, S Kellis, C Klaes, et al. Neurophysiology. Decoding motor imagery from the posterior parietal cortex of a tetraplegic human. Science. 2015, 348(6237): 906-910.
Crossref Google Scholar
[44]
AB Remsik, K Dodd, L Williams Jr, et al. Behavioral outcomes following brain-computer interface intervention for upper extremity rehabilitation in stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Front Neurosci. 2018, 12: 752.
Crossref Google Scholar
[45]
E Guanziroli, M Cazzaniga, L Colombo, et al. Assistive powered exoskeleton for complete spinal cord injury: correlations between walking ability and exoskeleton control. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2019, 55(2): 209-216.
Crossref Google Scholar
[46]
DR Louie, JJ Eng, T Lam, et al. Gait speed using powered robotic exoskeletons after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and correlational study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015, 12: 82.
Crossref Google Scholar
[47]
JL Contreras-Vidal, N A Bhagat, J Brantley, et al. Powered exoskeletons for bipedal locomotion after spinal cord injury. J Neural Eng. 2016, 13(3): 031001.
Crossref Google Scholar
[48]
A Kilicarslan, S Prasad, RG Grossman, et al. High accuracy decoding of user intentions using EEG to control a lower-body exoskeleton. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013, 2013: 5606-5609.
Crossref Google Scholar
[49]
M Capogrosso, T Milekovic, D Borton, et al. A brain–spine interface alleviating gait deficits after spinal cord injury in Primates. Nature. 2016, 539(7628): 284-288.
Crossref Google Scholar
[50]
TD Aumann, Y Prut. Do sensorimotor β-oscillations maintain muscle synergy representations in primary motor cortex? Trends Neurosci. 2015, 38(2): 77-85.
Crossref Google Scholar
[51]
TW Kim, BH Lee. Clinical usefulness of brain- computer interface-controlled functional electrical stimulation for improving brain activity in children with spastic cerebral palsy: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016, 28(9): 2491-2494.
Crossref Google Scholar
[52]
JR Wolpaw, RS Bedlack, DJ Reda, et al. Independent home use of a brain-computer interface by people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurology. 2018, 91(3): e258-e267.
Crossref Google Scholar
[53]
L Carelli, F Solca, A Faini, et al. Brain-computer interface for clinical purposes: cognitive assessment and rehabilitation. Biomed Res Int. 2017, 2017: 1695290.
Crossref Google Scholar
[54]
G Santhanam, SI Ryu, BM Yu, et al. A high- performance brain-computer interface. Nature. 2006, 442(7099): 195-198.
Crossref Google Scholar
[55]
ADHD: clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2011, 128(5): 1007-1022.
Crossref Google Scholar
[56]
M Arns, S de Ridder, U Strehl, et al. Efficacy of neurofeedback treatment in ADHD: the effects on inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity: a meta- analysis. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2009, 40(3): 180-189.
Crossref Google Scholar
[57]
J van Doren, M Arns, H Heinrich, et al. Sustained effects of neurofeedback in ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019, 28(3): 293-305.
Crossref Google Scholar
[58]
MA Vollebregt, M van Dongen-Boomsma, JK Buitelaar, et al. Does EEG-neurofeedback improve neurocognitive functioning in children with attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder? A systematic review and a double-blind placebo-controlled study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2014, 55(5): 460-472.
Crossref Google Scholar
[59]
M Arns, H Heinrich, U Strehl. Evaluation of neurofeedback in ADHD: the long and winding road. Biol Psychol. 2014, 95: 108-115.
Crossref Google Scholar
[60]
SM Snyder, JR Hall. A meta-analysis of quantitative EEG power associated with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2006, 23(5): 440-455.
Crossref Google Scholar
[61]
P Coutin-Churchman, Y Añez, M Uzcátegui, et al. Quantitative spectral analysis of EEG in psychiatry revisited: drawing signs out of numbers in a clinical setting. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003, 114(12): 2294-2306.
Crossref Google Scholar
[62]
JJ Daly, JR Wolpaw. Brain-computer interfaces in neurological rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol. 2008, 7(11): 1032-1043.
Crossref Google Scholar
[63]
M Grosse-Wentrup, D Mattia, K Oweiss. Using brain-computer interfaces to induce neural plasticity and restore function. J Neural Eng. 2011, 8(2): 025004.
Crossref Google Scholar
[64]
T Wieloch, K Nikolich. Mechanisms of neural plasticity following brain injury. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2006, 16(3): 258-264.
Crossref Google Scholar
[65]
NS Ward. Neural plasticity and recovery of function. In Progress in Brain Research. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005.
[66]
E Buch, C Weber, LG Cohen, et al. Think to move: a neuromagnetic brain-computer interface (BCI) system for chronic stroke. Stroke. 2008, 39(3): 910-917.
Crossref Google Scholar
[67]
SR Soekadar, N Birbaumer, MW Slutzky, et al. Brain-machine interfaces in neurorehabilitation of stroke. Neurobiol Dis. 2015, 83: 172-179.
Crossref Google Scholar
[68]
CE King, PT Wang, LA Chui, et al. Operation of a brain-computer interface walking simulator for individuals with spinal cord injury. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013, 10: 77.
Crossref Google Scholar
[69]
FD Broccard, T Mullen, YM Chi, et al. Closed-loop brain-machine-body interfaces for noninvasive rehabilitation of movement disorders. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014, 42(8): 1573-1593.
Crossref Google Scholar
[70]
F Nijboer, A Furdea, I Gunst, et al. An auditory brain-computer interface (BCI). J Neurosci Methods. 2008, 167(1): 43-50.
Crossref Google Scholar
[71]
T Cao, F Wan, CM Wong, et al. Objective evaluation of fatigue by EEG spectral analysis in steady-state visual evoked potential-based brain-computer interfaces. Biomed Eng Online. 2014, 13(1): 28.
Crossref Google Scholar
[72]
A Chatterjee, V Aggarwal, A Ramos, et al. A brain- computer interface with vibrotactile biofeedback for haptic information. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2007, 4: 40.
Crossref Google Scholar
[73]
DW Tan, MA Schiefer, MW Keith, et al. A neural interface provides long-term stable natural touch perception. Sci Transl Med. 2014, 6(257): 257ra138.
Crossref Google Scholar
[74]
S Santaniello, G Fiengo, L Glielmo, et al. Closed- loop control of deep brain stimulation: a simulation study. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2011, 19(1): 15-24.
Crossref Google Scholar
[75]
E Fernández, B Greger, PA House, et al. Acute human brain responses to intracortical microelectrode arrays: challenges and future prospects. Front Neuroeng. 2014, 7: 24.
Crossref Google Scholar
[76]
CM Stinear. Stroke rehabilitation research needs to be different to make a difference. F1000Res. 2016, 5: F1000 Faculty Rev–1467.
Crossref Google Scholar
Journal of Neurorestoratology
Volume 8 Issue 1,
March 2020
Pages 12-25
DOI: 10.26599/JNR.2020.9040001
Cite this article:
Zhuang M, Wu Q, Wan F, et al. State-of-the-art non-invasive brain–computer interface for neural rehabilitation: A review. Journal of Neurorestoratology, 2020, 8(1): 12-25. https://doi.org/10.26599/JNR.2020.9040001

2432

Views

311

Downloads

53

Crossref

46

Web of Science

0

Scopus

Altmetrics
Received: 09 October 2019
Revised: 02 February 2020
Accepted: 05 February 2020
Published: 05 March 2020
© The authors 2020

This article is published with open access at http://jnr.tsinghuajournals.com
Return