Advertisement

Brain-Computer Interfaces and Diagnosis

  • Camille Chatelle
  • Steven Laureys
  • Quentin NoirhommeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 12)

Abstract

Recent electrophysiological and neuroimaging studies showed the possibility to detect command-specific changes in electroencephalography (EEG) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signals independent of any motor pathway. These techniques could help in the improvement of the diagnosis in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC; often suffering severe motor disabilities), providing motor-independent evidence of command following and even, in some cases, permitting communication. We here review the first results obtained by BCI-like applications in patients with DOC and discuss the challenges facing BCI research. One application which has been rarely thought for BCI is the use of these systems as diagnosis tools. Indeed, a BCI may help to detect signs of consciousness and communication in patients lacking the ability to move or speak. In this chapter, we will present the first applications of BCI approaches to detect signs of consciousness in patients with DOC. We will then highlight the main challenges that will need to be overcome in future research and some clues from studies in healthy controls and patients with locked-in syndrome (LIS).

Keywords

Motor Imagery Mental Imagery Minimally Conscious State Imagery Task Minimally Conscious State Patient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse and Martin Monti for their collaboration on the patients’ data information. This work was supported by the Belgian Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS), European Commission, Mind Science Foundation, James McDonnell Foundation, French Speaking Community Concerted Research Action, Fondation Léon Fredericq, Public Utility Foundation “Université Européenne du Travail” and “Fondazione Europea di Ricerca Biomedica”. This work is supported by the European ICT Programme Projects FP7-247919 DECODER. The text reflects solely the views of its authors. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

References

  1. Bardin, J.C., J.J. Fins, et al. 2011. Dissociations between behavioural and functional magnetic resonance imaging-based evaluations of cognitive function after brain injury. Brain 134(Pt 3): 769–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bianchi, L., S. Sami, et al. 2010. Which physiological components are more suitable for visual ERP based brain-computer interface? A preliminary MEG/EEG study. Brain Topography 23(2): 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birbaumer, N. 1997. Slow cortical potentials: Their origin, meaning, and clinical use. In Brain and behavior past, present, and future, ed. G.J.M. van Boxtel and K. Böcker, 25–39. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Birbaumer, N. 2006. Breaking the silence: Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) for communication and motor control. Psychophysiology 43(6): 517–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birbaumer, N., N. Ghanayim, et al. 1999. A spelling device for the paralysed. Nature 398(6725): 297–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birbaumer, N., A. Kübler, et al. 2000. The thought translation device (TTD) for completely paralyzed patients. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering 8(2): 190–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruno, M.A., S. Majerus, et al. 2012. Functional neuroanatomy underlying the clinical subcategorization of minimally conscious state patients. Journal of Neurology 259(6):1087–98.Google Scholar
  8. Chatelle, C., S. Chennu, et al. 2012. Brain-computer interfacing in disorders of consciousness. Brain Injury 26(12):1510–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cruse, D., S. Chennu, et al. 2011. Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state. The Lancet 378(9809): 2088–2094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cruse, D., S. Chennu, et al. 2012. The relationship between aetiology and covert cognition in the minimally-conscious state. Neurology 78(11): 816–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cruse, D., S. Chennu, et al. 2013. Response to: Reanalysis of ‘Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state: A cohort study’. The Lancet 381(9863): 291–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elbert, T., B. Rockstroh, et al. 1980. Biofeedback of slow cortical potentials. I. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 48(3): 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giacino, J., S. Ashwal, et al. 2002. The minimally conscious state: Definition and diagnostic criteria. Neurology 58(3): 349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldfine, A.M., J.D. Victor, et al. 2011. Determination of awareness in patients with severe brain injury using EEG power spectral analysis. Clinical Neurophysiology 122(11):2157–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldfine, A.M., J.C. Bardin, et al. 2013. Reanalysis of Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state: A cohort study. The Lancet 381(9863): 289–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray, M., A.H. Kemp, et al. 2003. Cortical neurophysiology of anticipatory anxiety: An investigation utilizing steady state probe topography (SSPT). NeuroImage 20(2): 975–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guger, C., G. Edlinger, et al. 2003. How many people are able to operate an EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI)? IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 11(2): 145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guger, C., S. Daban, et al. 2009. How many people are able to control a P300-based brain-computer interface (BCI)? Neuroscience Letters 462(1): 94–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halder, S., M. Rea, et al. 2010. An auditory oddball brain-computer interface for binary choices. Clinical Neurophysiology 121(4): 516–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill, N.J., T.N. Lal, et al. 2006. Classifying EEG and ECoG signals without subject training for fast BCI implementation: Comparison of nonparalyzed and completely paralyzed subjects. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 14(2): 183–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffmann, U., J.M. Vesin, et al. 2008. An efficient P300-based brain-computer interface for disabled subjects. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 167(1): 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaufmann, T., E. Hammer, et al. 2011. ERPs contributing to classification in the P300 BCI. In Proceedings of the 5th international brain-computer interface conference. Graz: Graz University of Technology.Google Scholar
  23. Kübler, A., B. Kotchoubey, et al. 1999. The thought translation device: A neurophysiological approach to communication in total motor paralysis. Experimental Brain Research 124(2): 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kübler, A., V.K. Mushahwar, et al. 2006. BCI meeting 2005–workshop on clinical issues and applications. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 14(2): 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kübler, A., A. Furdea, et al. 2009. A brain-computer interface controlled auditory event-related potential (p300) spelling system for locked-in patients. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1157: 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laureys, S., G.G. Celesia, et al. 2010. Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome: A new name for the vegetative state or apallic syndrome. BMC Medicine 8: 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lesenfants, D., N. Partoune, et al. 2011. Design of a novel covert SSVEP-based BCI. In Proceedings of the 5th international brain-computer interface conference. Graz: University of Technology Publishing House.Google Scholar
  28. Lule, D., Q. Noirhomme, et al. 2013. Probing command following in patients with disorders of consciousness using a brain-computer interface. Clinical Neurophysiology 124: 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Monti, M.M., M.R. Coleman, et al. 2009. Executive functions in the absence of behavior: Functional imaging of the minimally conscious state. Progress in Brain Research 177: 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Monti, M.M., A. Vanhaudenhuyse, et al. 2010. Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. New England Journal of Medicine 362(7): 579–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nakase-Richardson, R., S.A. Yablon, et al. 2009. Emergence from minimally conscious state: Insights from evaluation of posttraumatic confusion. Neurology 73(14): 1120–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Neuper, C., R. Scherer, et al. 2005. Imagery of motor actions: Differential effects of kinesthetic and visual-motor mode of imagery in single-trial EEG. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research 25(3): 668–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Owen, A.M., M.R. Coleman, et al. 2006. Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science 313(5792): 1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parini, S., L. Maggi, et al. 2009. A robust and self-paced BCI system based on a four class SSVEP paradigm: Algorithms and protocols for a high-transfer-rate direct brain communication. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 864564 doi: 10.1155/2009/864564.
  35. Perlstein, W.M., M.A. Cole, et al. 2003. Steady-state visual evoked potentials reveal frontally-mediated working memory activity in humans. Neuroscience Letters 342(3): 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pfurtscheller, G., and F.H. Lopes da Silva. 1999. Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: Basic principles. Clinical Neurophysiology 110(11): 1842–1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfurtscheller, G., C. Neuper, et al. 1997. EEG-based discrimination between imagination of right and left hand movement. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 103(6): 642–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pham, M., T. Hinterberger, et al. 2005. An auditory brain-computer interface based on the self-regulation of slow cortical potentials. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 19(3): 206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Plum, F., and J. Posner. 1966. The diagnosis of stupor and coma. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis & Co.Google Scholar
  40. Regan, D. 1966. Some characteristics of average steady-state and transient responses evoked by modulated light. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 20(3): 238–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Regan, D. 1989. Human brain electrophysiology: Evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  42. Schnakers, C., F. Perrin, et al. 2008. Voluntary brain processing in disorders of consciousness. Neurology 71: 1614–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schnakers, C., F. Perrin, et al. 2009. Detecting consciousness in a total locked-in syndrome: An active event-related paradigm. Neurocase 4: 1–7.Google Scholar
  44. Vialatte, F.B., M. Maurice, et al. 2010. Steady-state visually evoked potentials: Focus on essential paradigms and future perspectives. Progress in Neurobiology 90(4): 418–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Camille Chatelle
    • 1
  • Steven Laureys
    • 1
  • Quentin Noirhomme
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Coma Science Group, Cyclotron Research Centre and Neurology DepartmentUniversity of LiegeLiegeBelgium

Personalised recommendations