Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
laboratory, electromagnetic interference and other artifacts (e.g., EMGs and
EOGs) are much stronger in daily home life. Suitable measures then need to
be applied to ensure the quality of the EEG recordings. Therefore, for data
recording in an unshielded environment, the use of active electrodes may be
better than the use of passive electrodes. Such usage can ensure that the
recorded signal is less sensitive to interference. To remove the artifacts in
EEG signals, additional recordings of EMGs and EOGs may be necessary
and advanced techniques for online artifact canceling should be applied.
Moreover, to reduce the dependence on technical assistance during system
operation, ad hoc functions should be provided in the system to adapt to the
individual diversity of the user and nonstationarity of the signal caused by
changes of electrode impedance or brain state. These functions must be
convenient for users to employ. For example, software should be able to
detect bad electrode contacts in real time and adjust the algorithms to fit the
remaining good channels automatically.
Acknowledgments
This work was partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (30630022, S. Gao, 60675029, B. Hong) and the Tsinghua-Yu-Yuan Medi-
cal Sciences Fund (B. Hong).
References
[1]
Lebedev, M. A., and M. A. Nicolelis, “Brain-Machine Interfaces: Past, Present and Future,”
Trends Neurosci.,
Vol. 29, No. 9, 2006, pp. 536-546.
[2]
Wolpaw, J. R., et al., “Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control,”
Clin.
Neurophysiol.,
Vol. 113, No. 6, 2002, pp. 767-791.
[3]
Schwartz, A. B., et al., “Brain-Controlled Interfaces: Movement Restoration with Neural
Prosthetics,”
Neuron,
Vol. 52, No. 1, 2006, pp. 205-220.
[4]
Serruya, M. D., et al., “Instant Neural Control of a Movement Signal,”
Nature,
Vol. 416,
No. 6877, 2002, pp. 141-142.
[5]
Wessberg, J., et al., “Real-Time Prediction of Hand Trajectory by Ensembles of Cortical
Neurons in Primates,”
Nature,
Vol. 408, No. 6810, 2000, pp. 361-365.
[6]
Taylor, D. M., S. I. Tillery, and A. B. Schwartz, “Direct Cortical Control of 3D
Neuroprosthetic Devices,”
Science,
Vol. 296, No. 5574, 2002, pp. 1829-1832.
[7]
Santhanam, G., et al., “A High-Performance Brain-Computer Interface,”
Nature,
Vol. 442,
No. 7099, 2006, pp. 195-198.
[8]
Hochberg, L. R., et al., “Neuronal Ensemble Control of Prosthetic Devices by a Human
with Tetraplegia,”
Nature,
Vol. 442, No. 7099, 2006, pp. 164-171.
[9]
Leuthardt, E. C., et al., “A Brain-Computer Interface Using Electrocorticographic Signals in
Humans,”
J. Neural Eng.,
Vol. 1, No. 2, 2004, pp. 63-71.
[10]
Bashashati, A., et al., “A Survey of Signal Processing Algorithms in Brain-Computer Inter-
faces Based on Electrical Brain Signals,”
J. Neural Eng.,
Vol. 4, No. 2, 2007, pp. R32-R57.
[11]
Pfurtscheller, G., et al., “Mu Rhythm (De) Synchronization and EEG Single-Trial Classifica-
tion of Different Motor Imagery Tasks,”
NeuroImage,
Vol. 31, No. 1, 2006, pp. 153-159.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search