Journal Home > Volume 8 , Issue 1

Neural damage has been a great challenge to the medical field for a very long time. The emergence of brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) offered a new possibility to enhance the activity of daily living and provide a new formation of entertainment for those with disabilities. Intracortical BCIs, which require the implantation of microelectrodes, can receive neuronal signals with a high spatial and temporal resolution from the individual’s cortex. When BCI decoded cortical signals and mapped them to external devices, it displayed the ability not only to replace part of the human motor function but also to help individuals restore certain neurological functions. In this review, we focus on human intracortical BCI research using microelectrode arrays and summarize the main directions and the latest results in this field. In general, we found that intracortical BCI research based on motor neuroprosthetics and functional electrical stimulation have already achieved some simple functional replacement and treatment of motor function. Pioneering work in the posterior parietal cortex has given us a glimpse of the potential that intracortical BCIs have to control external devices and receive various sensory information.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Neurorestoration: Advances in human brain–computer interface using microelectrode arrays

Show Author's information Jiawei Han1,2Hongjie Jiang1Junming Zhu1( )
Department of Neurosurgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310009, China;
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China

Abstract

Neural damage has been a great challenge to the medical field for a very long time. The emergence of brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) offered a new possibility to enhance the activity of daily living and provide a new formation of entertainment for those with disabilities. Intracortical BCIs, which require the implantation of microelectrodes, can receive neuronal signals with a high spatial and temporal resolution from the individual’s cortex. When BCI decoded cortical signals and mapped them to external devices, it displayed the ability not only to replace part of the human motor function but also to help individuals restore certain neurological functions. In this review, we focus on human intracortical BCI research using microelectrode arrays and summarize the main directions and the latest results in this field. In general, we found that intracortical BCI research based on motor neuroprosthetics and functional electrical stimulation have already achieved some simple functional replacement and treatment of motor function. Pioneering work in the posterior parietal cortex has given us a glimpse of the potential that intracortical BCIs have to control external devices and receive various sensory information.

Keywords: neural rehabilitation, intracortical brain–computer interface (BCI), microelectrode, motor neuroprosthetics

References(51)

[1]
HI Krebs, N Hogan, ML Aisen, et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1998, 6(1): 75-87.
[2]
U Chaudhary, N Birbaumer, MR Curado. Brain- machine interface (BMI) in paralysis. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015, 58(1): 9-13.
[3]
E Formento, K Minassian, F Wagner, et al. Electrical spinal cord stimulation must preserve proprioception to enable locomotion in humans with spinal cord injury. Nat Neurosci. 2018, 21(12): 1728-1741.
[4]
JJ Vidal. Toward direct brain-computer communication. Annu Rev Biophys Bioeng. 1973, 2: 157-180.
[5]
MO Krucoff, S Rahimpour, MW Slutzky, et al. Enhancing nervous system recovery through neurobiologics, neural interface training, and neurorehabilitation. Front Neurosci. 2016, 10: 584.
[6]
LR Hochberg, MD Serruya, GM Friehs, et al. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature. 2006, 442(7099): 164-171.
[7]
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.
[8]
JL Collinger, B Wodlinger, JE Downey, et al. High- performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet. 2013, 381(9866): 557-564.
[9]
RA Andersen, T Aflalo, S Kellis. From thought to action: The brain-machine interface in posterior parietal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019, in press, .
[10]
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.
[11]
M Armenta Salas, L Bashford, S Kellis, et al. Proprioceptive and cutaneous sensations in humans elicited by intracortical microstimulation. Elife. 2018, 7: e32904.
[12]
CE Bouton, A Shaikhouni, NV Annetta, et al. Restoring cortical control of functional movement in a human with quadriplegia. Nature. 2016, 533(7602): 247-250.
[13]
Y Tomita, FB Vialatte, G Dreyfus, et al. Bimodal BCI using simultaneously NIRS and EEG. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014, 61(4): 1274-1284.
[14]
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.
[15]
F Lotte, C Jeunet. Defining and quantifying users' mental imagery-based BCI skills: a first step. J Neural Eng. 2018, 15(4): 046030.
[16]
N Padfield, J Zabalza, HM Zhao, et al. EEG-based brain–computer interfaces using motor-imagery: techniques and challenges. Sensors (Basel). 2019, 19(6): E1423.
[17]
H Yuan, T Liu, R Szarkowski, et al. Negative covariation between task-related responses in alpha/beta-band activity and BOLD in human sensorimotor cortex: an EEG and fMRI study of motor imagery and movements. Neuroimage. 2010, 49(3): 2596-2606.
[18]
AJ Doud, JP Lucas, MT Pisansky, et al. Continuous three-dimensional control of a virtual helicopter using a motor imagery based brain–computer interface. PLoS One. 2011, 6(10): e26322.
[19]
E Asano, C Juhász, A Shah, et al. Origin and propagation of epileptic spasms delineated on electrocorticography. Epilepsia. 2005, 46(7): 1086-1097.
[20]
A Kuruvilla, R Flink. Intraoperative electrocorticography in epilepsy surgery: useful or not? Seizure. 2003, 12(8): 577-584.
[21]
A Palmini. The concept of the epileptogenic zone: a modern look at Penfield and Jasper's views on the role of interictal spikes. Epileptic Disord. 2006, 8(Suppl 2): S10-S15.
[22]
PR Kennedy, RA Bakay. Restoration of neural output from a paralyzed patient by a direct brain connection. Neuroreport. 1998, 9(8): 1707-1711.
[23]
PR Kennedy, RA Bakay, MM Moore, et al. Direct control of a computer from the human central nervous system. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 2000, 8(2): 198-202.
[24]
JK Chapin, KA Moxon, RS Markowitz, et al. Real- time control of a robot arm using simultaneously recorded neurons in the motor cortex. Nat Neurosci. 1999, 2(7): 664-670.
[25]
JR Wolpaw, N Birbaumer, DJ McFarland, et al. Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin Neurophysiol. 2002, 113(6): 767-791.
[26]
JR Wolpaw, DJ McFarland. Control of a two- dimensional movement signal by a noninvasive brain–computer interface in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004, 101(51): 17849-17854.
[27]
XG Chen, B Zhao, YJ Wang, et al. Combination of high-frequency SSVEP-based BCI and computer vision for controlling a robotic arm. J Neural Eng. 2019, 16(2): 026012.
[28]
A Albu-Schäffer, S Haddadin, C Ott, et al. The DLR lightweight robot: design and control concepts for robots in human environments. Industrial Robot. 2007, 34(5): 376-385.
[29]
L Resnik. Research update: VA study to optimize DEKA arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010, 47(3): ix-x.
[30]
SP Kim, JD Simeral, LR Hochberg, et al. Neural control of computer cursor velocity by decoding motor cortical spiking activity in humans with tetraplegia. J Neural Eng. 2008, 5(4): 455-476.
[31]
SP Kim, JD Simeral, LR Hochberg, et al. Point-and- click cursor control with an intracortical neural interface system by humans with tetraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2011, 19(2): 193-203.
[32]
JD Simeral, SP Kim, MJ Black, et al. Neural control of cursor trajectory and click by a human with tetraplegia 1000 days after implant of an intracortical microelectrode array. J Neural Eng. 2011, 8(2): 025027.
[33]
JE Downey, N Schwed, SM Chase, et al. Intracortical recording stability in human brain–computer interface users. J Neural Eng. 2018, 15(4): 046016.
[34]
MJ Vansteensel, EGM Pels, MG Bleichner, et al. Fully implanted brain–computer interface in a locked-in patient with ALS. N Engl J Med. 2016, 375(21): 2060-2066.
[35]
M Kryger, B Wester, EA Pohlmeyer, et al. Flight simulation using a Brain–computer interface: a pilot, pilot study. Exp Neurol. 2017, 287(Pt 4): 473-478.
[36]
EJ Hwang, RA Andersen. The utility of multichannel local field potentials for brain-machine interfaces. J Neural Eng. 2013, 10(4): 046005.
[37]
JA Perge, SM Zhang, WQ Malik, et al. Reliability of directional information in unsorted spikes and local field potentials recorded in human motor cortex. J Neural Eng. 2014, 11(4): 046007.
[38]
A Chantraine, A Baribeault, D Uebelhart, et al. Shoulder pain and dysfunction in hemiplegia: effects of functional electrical stimulation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999, 80(3): 328-331.
[39]
S Pereira, S Mehta, A McIntyre, et al. Functional electrical stimulation for improving gait in persons with chronic stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2012, 19(6): 491-498.
[40]
DA Friedenberg, MA Schwemmer, AJ Landgraf, et al. Neuroprosthetic-enabled control of graded arm muscle contraction in a paralyzed human. Sci Rep. 2017, 7(1): 8386.
[41]
SC 4th Colachis, MA Bockbrader, MM Zhang, et al. Dexterous control of seven functional hand movements using cortically-controlled transcutaneous muscle stimulation in a person with tetraplegia. Front Neurosci. 2018, 12: 208.
[42]
HL Dean, MA Hagan, B Pesaran. Only coherent spiking in posterior parietal cortex coordinates looking and reaching. Neuron. 2012, 73(4): 829-841.
[43]
SB Kuang, P Morel, A Gail. Planning movements in visual and physical space in monkey posterior parietal cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2016, 26(2): 731-747.
[44]
D Ovadia, G Bottini. Neuroethical implications of deep brain stimulation in degenerative disorders. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015, 28(6): 598-603.
[45]
T Swift, R Huxtable. The ethics of sham surgery in Parkinson’s disease: back to the future? Bioethics. 2013, 27(4): 175-185.
[46]
K Wartolowska, A Judge, S Hopewell, et al. Use of placebo controls in the evaluation of surgery: systematic review. BMJ. 2014, 348: g3253.
[47]
MA Hughes. Engineering brain–computer interfaces: past, present and future. J Neurosurg Sci. 2014, 58(2): 117-123.
[48]
JV Rosenfeld, YT Wong. Neurobionics and the brain–computer interface: current applications and future horizons. Med J Aust. 2017, 206(8): 363-368.
[49]
J Schouenborg. Biocompatible multichannel electrodes for long-term neurophysiological studies and clinical therapy—novel concepts and design. Prog Brain Res. 2011, 194: 61-70.
[50]
GS Hong, TM Fu, T Zhou, et al. Syringe injectable electronics: precise targeted delivery with quantitative input/output connectivity. Nano Lett. 2015, 15(10): 6979-6984.
[51]
TI Kim, JG McCall, YH Jung, et al. Injectable, cellular- scale optoelectronics with applications for wireless optogenetics. Science. 2013, 340(6129): 211-216.
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 15 March 2020
Revised: 01 April 2020
Accepted: 02 April 2020
Published: 25 May 2020
Issue date: March 2020

Copyright

© The authors 2020

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National key R&D plan, China (No. 2017YFC1308500); and the Public Projects of Zhejiang Province, China (No. 2019C03033).

Rights and permissions

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

Return