Talk:Brain–computer interface/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

External Links section: Policies on adding researchers, articles and universities

To maintain the quality of the article, prevent linkspam and keep the entry at manageable length a few policies have been formulated for the organisation, portals and articles, and researchers link subsections. These policies are embedded in the article as comments but I'm reproducing them here for all to see:

External links Organisations

Please refrain from adding universtity listings in this section. To keep the article a manageable size, the list is contained in Neural Engineering#Neural Engineering Labs, so please add any entries there. Please also refrain from adding BCI device companies and the like that weren't important enough to get a mention in the text.

Based on this comment I'm removing the section of random university names currently under commercialization. (I don't know why it's there, but here's what it says:

American University in Cairo University of Wisconsin at Madison University of California San Diego Washington University in St. Louis Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia State University Fondazione Santa Lucia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riedl (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

External Links Researchers

Because of the potentially huge number of BCI researchers, please only add a new entry if the researcher is one of the leading names in the field who is already mentioned in the text above. Resarchers mentioned only in the in-line references do not qualify.

External Links Portals and articles

When inserting a reference in this section please use the following format:

• title of article or name of website, name of publication in italics, date (UK format:day, month, year), brief description of article, date loaded.

Incorrectly formated entries may be reverted.

Thanks for your cooperation.--Saganaki- 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Early comments

I wrote the first definition for "direct mind-computer interface" and subsequently edited it. Both of which I did before having a log in to Wikipedia.

So, I thought I'd just post this to take credit/blame for the page, rather than leaving it be completely anonymous.

~galvorn

If you still have the same IP, you can actually have the edits re-assigned to your new username. Instructions are on the help pages. --FleaPlus 16:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

It was really good work man. It was just your original article talked about mind and consciousness as well as brain and computers. The former two topics are more in the realm of philosophy while the "feel" of your page was more in the realm of cybernetics, hence my redirect for the sake of accuracy. Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting link on a company that does something similar: Brain Actuated Technologies, Inc.

BCI Competitions Section?

Dear people, I'm new to Wiki and slightly frightened to edit the stuff. I thought we should have something on the BCI Competition since it enables the general people to get involved in BCI activities. Though not as heavy as the research groups, it allows us to get a feel of what BCI people are doing in the labs and helps us appreciate the complexities. Here's what I had written, please add it if you think appropriate:

BCI's are generally expensive to develop or build. They may require big research grants, expensive equipment and strict procedures to ensure safety of subjects. This makes BCIs a difficult proposition for students, researchers, and hobbyists. To encourage more widespread BCI research, some of the major BCI research groups have been conducting a series of BCI Competitions beginning with the year 2001. There have been three competitions conducted so far and there seems to be enough enthusiasm in the community to hold more competitions in the future. These competitions have been gaining increasing participation from a wide range of people including researchers, students and enthusiasts. The BCI Competitions have made it possible to validate multiple methods, techniques and algorithms effectively.

The BCI Competitions have enabled a way for practically everyone to get involved, experiment and contribute towards BCI research. They enable people to work on real data and use their own methods and techniques to process it. As a reward for having generated good results, the organisers provide an opportunity to the winners of these competitions to publish their methods in scientific journals.

http://ida.first.fhg.de/projects/bci/competition_iii/index.html BCI Competition III http://ida.first.fraunhofer.de/projects/bci/competition/ BCI Competition II http://liinc.bme.columbia.edu/competition.htm BCI Competition I

59.161.14.50 18:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Archis

Redirect and massive edits

So I've totally reworked this section. It was originally "direct mind-computer interface", but that is inherently misleading. The original article spoke about interfacing mind and consciousness with machines, which is entirely different from the crux of the article, which was interfacing brains and computers. In the theory of mind, mind and brain are not interchangeable. Since BCIs are about practical interfaces and not theory, and since the original article references these practical interfaces, I redirected everything to this new article.

I have included new links citing the new research I mentioned in this article, and uploaded a public domain image from a ground-breaking PloS article published in 2003 demonstrating a BCI. I've also tried to conform to Wikipedia's style. Any input would be greatly appreciated however, since today is my first day at this Wiki thing, and I may have over-stepped my bounds.

I also left a comment in neuro cybernetics and computational neuroscience, as someone was suggesting those two topics merge. I disagree with that idea and I suggest neuro cybernetics merge with this article (or vice versa).

Semiconscious 07:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work. - Omegatron 13:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks man. I appreciate the feedback. Any suggestions for a newbie, since this is the style I will probably build from? Semiconscious 19:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it's great. If people don't like something they will fix it for you. :-) Just watch articles you have edited and see what people change (like my nitpicking of this). Can you check over Electroencephalography? Or you could take your newcomer enthusiasm over to neurofeedback. It needs to be cleaned up... - Omegatron 23:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Neuroprosthetics

I think this, as well as cyberware and brain implant should be merged into neuroprosthetics, an area of neuroscience.--Nectarflowed ^T 28 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)

BCI isn't just about replacing missing body parts (which is literally what a prosthesis is) but about augmenting existing systems. Neuroprosthetics is relevant to the medical applications of neuroscience, whereas BCI goes beyond that. If I add a device either implanted in my brain or non-invasively that allows me to photograph what my eyes are seeing and upload it to a computer, that is not a prosthesis. Though you are on to an interesting topic; neuroprosthetics should be expanded. These articles should not be merged however. That would be like suggesting that skin graft be merged with Bulletproof vest because they both protect a person's organs (and I do not mean this as hyperbole). Semiconscious 28 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Popular usage and some dictionaries tend to define prosthetics solely as bodily replacement, but it looks like most dictionaries define it as artificial parts, not necessarily replacement parts. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines prosthetics as "The branch of medicine or surgery that deals with the production and application of artificial body parts."

I've seen prosthetics used to refer to any device used to augment human abilities, such as clothing, or a notepad being referred to as a memory prosthesis, but I see what you mean, that your vision example isn't necessarily an augmentation of our visual system. Perhaps then just brain implant and cyberware should be merged into neuroprosthetics.--Nectarflowed ^T 28 June 2005 21:06 (UTC)

This is purely a semantic argument. Since this field isn't yet established, which term will be the one to "win out" so to speak? Cyberware and Brain implant sound more as though they should be a part of Brain-computer interface. Neuroprosthetics is to BCI as Prosthetics is to Orthosis. Semiconscious 28 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)

I would think that Cyberwear and BCI should somehow be displayed together since they show a more realistic feature of what BCI is about. Prosthetics is about replacing what is suppose to be there or what has been taken away through freak cause. I would also like to see the addition of neuroscience because BCI has to do with neuroscience anoligical state being converted into digital state. This would take the use of cyberwear and BCI technology. --Cyberman 07:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Brain-Computer Interface Possibilities

1. Could it be possible to create a new type of secondary storage for humans instead of the analog paper and pen? From such risen idea could learning be faster and accessed quicker? Would the learning process to obtain information faster also be compelled to help lead brain-computer interface technology into a new direction?

2. Would such advancement when helping secondary memory actually evolve the human mind into finding cures and answers to life's riddles much quicker?--Cyberman 06:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Maybe. Artificial hippocampuses have been created and are being tested on rats right now. This may lead to memory "enhancement", as the hippocampus is the area of the brain that seems to encode long-term memories. This may some day lead to uploading kung fu! :)

2. This is totally a philosophical question. I mean, if you enhance memory, then theoretically one would be able to access more information more quickly, right? Humans are creatures that identify and study patterns. Creating a way to store and access different patterns more quickly may lead to faster advancement I guess. This is purely philosophical speculation, so please don't quote me on this. Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, would anyone happen to have an internet source or weblink/video to display the cursor usage of the primate?

I'll contact Jose Carmena and see if I can't get the video and upload it here. Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I've been studying brain neuroscience little by little. I've wondered about the hippocampus since I've been doing research on it for the past week or so. From studying it I stumbled on the term BCI which was the main reason I was studying this field, I wondered if it had been created and luckily I was correct. I did wonder if there way a way to advance that part of the brain. I sure wonder what will happen with the labrats, however I think such an animal wouldn't be adequate enough to find use for such brain potential seeing as how it doesn't have a language basis and scales of aritmetic reasoning that have developed for years on many scales like us humans. --Cyberman 07:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

On another note, the main reason I have become interested in this particular field was because I have been wondering for the longest time, "If humans live so long, and can only learn so fast, what to do to go further?" I figured some type of nanotechnological, cybernetic, or biomedical science to enhance the lifespan would be a nice thing, but even those simple things couldn't be achieved in the short amount of lifespan. That's why i figured obtaining a quick learning and memory process would be the fastest way to go about things because there would be more brainpower to calculate and determine how to create those cybernetic attachments to the human body so that lifespan would be increased. I think BCI is going to be quite the amazing thing to look at within the next few years. --Cyberman 07:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not really BCI, is it? That's more mind uploading. - Omegatron 13:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really talk about mind uploading, I'm talking about enhanced memory through secondary storage. I'll discuss mind uploading at that wikipage. --Cyberman 22:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

On second thought after coming to this a few hours later, I think I realize your POV. It would be mind uploading if you uploaded from the secondary storage into the main storage (brain). The whole idea of in that pathway is that it is hidden and needs to be accessed and thus uploaded to an area for access. I would hope that it would be a type of active memory that wouldn't need such uploading. Of course, the idea that all memory is uploaded from somewhere is true. I'm not very intelligent in neuroscience although it be the medical field in which I attempt to go into while stuck in Illinois. I would think that yes, in a way it's mind uploading. But not exactly the sci-fi version that you Omegatron and Semiconscious are talking about which includes uploading kung fu from a virtual reality from a computer database into an analog mind. I guess one could see the subconscience as the secondary memory storage, but I would hope to have something more accessable on command. What would be more amazing is a device that allows us to tap into that area on command.

Perhaps such a thing in that boundary wouldn't require programming and just routing and a simple entry command. Oooh @_@ ^_^ --Cyberman 03:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Removed section

Non-Invasive Brain Machine Interface

Many devices using a non-invasive carrier to remotely induce neural firings and remotely monitor the neural cortex have been developed.

• Microwaves were amongs the first carriers used in remote receiverless wireless voice transmission applications, based on the well studied Frey effect. An example is the Flanagan GP. Patent #3393279 “Nervous System Excitation Device” USPTO granted 7/16/68.

• Ultrasounds although of shorter practical range have also been used such as the Sony Corporation Patent #6,729,337 virtual reality device, a system that achieves probably for the first time the remote generation of multiple sens within the neural cortex : visual, audio, taste, smell and touch.

Reason for removal

• The Frey effect doesn't constitute a direct BCI, as only acoustic phenomena are simulated.
• If the Sony stuff exists only as patent application, let's wait for an implementation or at least a publication in some IEEE journal or the like.

Pjacobi 13:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• It seems the last user put their changes back without discussing it in here. Normally I would remove them pending discussion, but in this instance, I believe that user is in the right. This article is about interfaces between the brain and computers. Just because only a single modality is stimulated does not mean it shouldn't be included. Most of the article focuses on motor interfaces. I think it's nice to have a little piece on interactions going in the other direction. Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Non-Invasive Brain Machine Interface

Many devices using a non-invasive carrier to remotely induce neural firings and remotely monitor the neural cortex have been developed.

• Microwaves were amongs the first carriers used in remote receiverless wireless voice transmission applications, based on the well studied Frey effect. An example is the Flanagan GP. Patent #3393279 “Nervous System Excitation Device” USPTO granted 7/16/68.

Moreover, sensations such as dizziness, headaches and pins and needles have been succecefully induced in experimental subjects, from a distance of hundred of meters from the transmitter, as reported by Allan H. Frey as early as 1961.

Induction of vertigo sensation are used in devices for scaring birds away from aircraft near airfields by microwaves (Kreithen ML. Patent #5774088 “Method and system for warning birds of hazards” USPTO granted 6/30/98).

The remote monitoring of neural activity can also be achieved with the use of a carrier like microwaves, such as the many see through wall devices, able to detect heartbeats, respiratory and other muscular activities. The EMF carrier is first send toward the target then recorded after the return. The difference is then calculated. The Time Domain Corporation's detector uses for instances coded ultra wideband (UWB) pulses ( 10 million pulses per second ) to penetrate most common building materials.

• Ultrasounds although of shorter practical range have also been proposed such as the Thomas P. Dawson Sony Corporation Patent #6,729,337 virtual reality device, a system that achieves probably for the first time the remote generation of multiple sens within the neural cortex : visual, audio, taste, smell and touch.

Focused short and intense ultrasounds are able to affect nerve structures directly and selectively, causing direct nerve stimulations that generate somatic sensations of touch, warmness, coldness, and pain. The same principle is also used for the Tactile Feeling Display, developed by the University of Tokyo.

Recent studies by the Univerity of Nottingham Medical School, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology laboratory have shown that rats exposed to a 20kHz ultrasound display fight behaviour similar to that seen following stimulation of brain regions associated with anxiety and defence. Therefore, this technique offers the potential of generating unconditioned aversive behaviour in rats in a non invasive way.

Removed again

I removed (again) an ever larger set of claims [1] for various reasons.

• Citing patent applications as references. Yikes, we aren't a mirror of USPTO server. And only a very small percentage of patent applications sees application. If this is the onyl source, it's not encyclopedic.
• Military applications (inducing dizziness, etc). This just doesn't fit the BCI definition
• Remote sensing of cortical activity. This would be a very welcome invention in the medical field, making it much easier to record EEGs. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So, where's your reference?

Pjacobi 15:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

It is simply non sensical to totally ignore Non-Invasive Brain Machine Interfaces in a Brain-computer interface entry. There is more than a use in medical imagery.--203.198.242.116 12:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not answer to my questions. Where are the references for remote cortex recordings? Why should "inducing dizziness" considered to be an interface. ... -Pjacobi 12:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The term non-invasive BCI is problematic since that term is often used to refer to EEG-based BCIs - such as those being developed by the Wadsworth group of Albany, NY. Based on this definition of non-invasive BCI I would favor inclusion of a section on the topic. --Ben Houston 00:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Wow quite a debate here! Perhaps we could come up with some sort of page redirection for non-invasive BCIs. It seems there are enough to warrant a separate page. I know of one "Brain Attenuation Technology" by a company named Cyberlink. I don't know if it the same Cyberlink that produces PowerDVD, but I saw it on a doccie and took note. Dessydes 01:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Possibly useful link

Someone added a link to this article to Psychotronics, but a) they linked to some sort of reprinter rather than to the original article, and b) it wasn't relevant to psychotronics except by a newly added "definition" unsupported by any sources. It would be relevant here, but it might be already covered here; I leave it to the expertise of editors here: http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=265991 -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-Invasive BCIs

I'm putting this here, because non-invasive BCIs cannot just be ignored, just because some Matrix fans decide so. I can put enough information in the following paragraph to warrant a redirect to Direct Brain Interface, or a rethought about BCIs, or enough to create a stub. Earlier on in the page I put a commment that was simply ignored. Since then I've seen a different documentary, with enough info for me to even correct some of my mistakes. The name of the company is: Brain Accentuated Technologies, its president is Andrew Junker, and the name of the device is (Cyberlink) Brain Fingers. Now let's see how you Johnny Mnemonic phreaks try to put this idea down again. Dessydes 14:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe many of the objections are not to non-invasive BCIs per-se, but rather to the inclusion of scientificly dubious topics like ultrasound, microwave and Frey effect "BCIs". The Brainfingers product you mention seems appropriate for inclusion with the caveat that it uses "... lateral eye movements ... [and] ... facial muscle activity" in addition to alpha and beta waves. I'm not disputing the theraputic utility of such a device for improving the quality of life for persons with disabilities, but it's not purely a BCI. joeyo 20:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a link to Toshiba/Neurosky's product is warranted, since it is the only commercially available one that I know of. I'm just leery of linking to a commercial product, having been flamed for doing so before on wped. 69.134.54.59 (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

0.5 Nom

This article was nominated for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 I failed this article because it's way too technical for the normal reader, I didn't understand the article much, please simplfy for a normal reader. Refs are a mess as well, and it's fails in the importance factor as well. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Theme in fiction" section

The bibliography is OK, but the textual part of this section needs work. It's a random selection of not especially notable stories and games. We should probably drop the extended Barnes & Shadowrun examples (but put them briefly in the list below), start the section with talk about some of the earliest brain-computer interface fiction (True Names by Vernor Vinge is the earliest I can think of rigth now, but I think earlier ones exist), and lead into the Matrix movies and other more notable recent examples at the end of the section, before the bibliography. Can anyone suggest a better plan, or more specifics about particularly early and notable examples?

Also, maybe the list should be in chronological order of publication rather than by author. --Jim Henry 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be great if you edited this section Jim. It looks like it has gradually grown over time but it really needs to be more than just a list of authors.--Saganaki- 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps it would be a good idea just to remove this section entirely and put a link to the Brain implant Theme in Fiction section? It is much better developed and is always going to overlap with BCIs..--Saganaki- 04:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed, added link --Saganaki- 03:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with brain computer interface

I suggest we merge the brain implants page into the BCI page because brain implants are a subset of BCI research. Brain implants and non-invasive imaging/EEG type techniques seem to be the two main thrusts of BCI research so there's plenty of scope for duplication between the BCI and the implants page. The BCI page also has a far larger amount of up-to-date content although I'd say there's scope to make the language more user friendly and improve the formatting. There's also plenty of material in the brain implants page that's of dubious provinance and could be improved or purged. Thanks, Saganaki-. ^{Ello Ello}, 6 September 2006.

Now think merger is a bad idea after discussion with other editors. There are non-BCI implants such as epilepsy pacemakers etc.--Saganaki- 03:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Orphan References

The article had a huge number of papers which were not referenced in the text. I've removed these orphan references as I think they are unlikely to be useful to a lay audience but have pasted them below in case they could be useful in the future. --Saganaki- 13:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved these to the transcranial-stimulation article as most appear relevant to that article.--Saganaki- 03:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Addressing issues outlined in 0.5 Nom

I've attempted to address some of the issues mentioned by Jaranda above why the article didn't make inclusion in wiki 0.5:

• Amalgamated references (and put in alphabetical order)
• Edits to improve text flow
• Edits to make article less technical while preserving the feel of the content

I'd also like to propose a working classifcation of BCI and neuroprosthesis:

• Invasive BCI (for example, Matt Nagel)
• Non-invasive BCI (for example, use of EEG)
• BCI devices that use neural tissue, but are not implanted in a living organism as a whole. (Think research growing networks in neurons in test environments, etc.)
• Neuroprosthesis: Implants which are linked to the nervous system but not directly to the brain (for example, Cochlear and retinal implants). This seems to be the definition employed by the neuroprosthetics wiki. It's a massive topic all on its own and deserves its own Wiki. Note, that there is some vision-related work which I would consider a BCI because the device is embedded in the brain (see Jens Neumann for example).

Good article status

What I think still needs to be done is:

• Merger with brain implants (reasons explained above).

Decided against this idea after discussion with other users. There are non-BCI implants such as epilepsy pacemakers etc.--Saganaki- 03:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Introduction - needs to explain why BCI is such a significant technology.

Made changes. Keen to hear if this heading in the right direction though.--Saganaki- 11:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Animal research - updated and edited.

Done

• Neuroprosthetics section - this is a mess and material in this section should probably be combined in other headings. The material in this section also seems to be at odds with the Neuroprosthetics Wiki itself, which deals with devices attached to the nervous system like Cochlea implants .

Cleaned up --Saganaki- 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Human invasive and non-invasive sections - there has been a huge amount of research in the last few years that needs adding to these sections, for example Jens Neumann.

Done --Saganaki- 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• New section - (working title BCI in the test-tube?). Dealing with neurons linked to devices outside living organisms.

Added, needs populating --Saganaki- 11:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Populated --Saganaki- 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• BCI in fiction section - needs editing to be turned into a potted history of BCI in fiction rather than just a list of authors .

Suggest removing this section entirely and put a link to the Brain implant Fiction section. --Saganaki- 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed, replaced with link. --Saganaki- 03:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• References - there are more references than text on the subject! Someone who is far more knowledgeable than I needs to edit this so that it contains the top 10-15 papers relevant to BCI.

Removed orphan references --Saganaki- 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• External links - needs editing to provide a BCI primer for interested readers.

Done --Saganaki- 10:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Submmitted article for feedback. Removed broken wikilinks as suggested. Still to complete: source and add graphics. --Saganaki- 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Done

• Submitted article for Good Article status review (11 October) Saganaki- 03:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Got

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

• The only major problem is some pictures, most pictures dosn't have succinct and descriptive captions, Image:MiguelNicolelisActuator.jpg anit fair use for this article.

On Hold. _→AzaToth 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Passed _→AzaToth 12:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting to featured article status

BCI reached good article status. Congratulations to all contributors. Now opening this dicussion topic to figure out what needs to be done to get to featured article status. A few thoughts to kick things off (Saganaki- 12:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)):

• Thorough review of article by neuroscientist.
• Nitpicky formatting of references

Removal of Garrett Stanley ref

I removed the paragraph on neural coding studies by Garrett Stanley. There have been literally thousands of studies of neural encoding/decoding and information theory on neural tissue. This article focusses on using the brain to send instructional signals to a computer. Stanley's studies do not constitute sending such signals. Instead, they are examples of studies in which the form of the signals in the brain are studied using computers. --Animalresearcher 11:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and I've reverted the edit - please contact me on my talk page if you want to discuss. My reasoning is that the Garrett study was one of the first significant reported studies on neural encoding. Further I don't follow your logic on instructional signals - the article isn't focused on instructional signals, simply the interfacing of brain and computer. Otherwise we'd have to disregard all the open-loop BCI material and all the research on vision BCI. Cheers Saganaki- 11:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of one-way vs two-way BCIs

I think it is unnecessary to focus on what one and two way BCIs are so soon in the article, and mentioning that nobody has ever done a two-way interface is even less interesting, since a two way BCI is just two one way BCIs... My point is that if you can do one way interfaces both to and from the brain, then you can do two way aswell. The fact that nobody has found it necessary or even interesting to do so is not an important point.

--LarsHolmberg 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would this count as a successful two way BCI? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926696.100-rise-of-the-ratbrained-robots.html They are living brain cells which tell the robot which way to go and the robot sends distance information to the cells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.250.127 (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

no, as the article you reference doesn't refer to any kind of brain. The neurons in this case are simply acting as another means of computation, more of a biological computer than a brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.111.213 (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From where is this text dump?

I moved the following text to here since it seems like it's been taken directly from somewhere, and there is no link to exactly from where. It is full of reference numbers, but the proper references aren't included at bottom. Please include the proper reference for each number to reinsert in article:

The experimental approach was developed based on current understanding of sensorimotor rhythms and on the methodology of current EEG-based BCIs that use these rhythms.[28] Sensorimotor rhythms comprise mu (8-12 Hz), beta (18–26 Hz), and gamma (>30 Hz) oscillations[29-31]. As mentioned earlier, the lower frequencies of mu and beta are thought to be produced by thalamocortical circuits and they change in amplitude in association with actual or imagined movements [32-35]. Higher frequencies (> 30 Hz) are thought to be produced by smaller cortical assemblies [36]. BCIs based on EEG oscillations have focused exclusively on mu and beta rhythms because gamma rhythms are inconspicuous at the scalp [37]. In contrast, gamma rhythms as well as mu and beta rhythms are prominent in ECoG during movements [34-37].

Until recently, the signal was assumed to be very similar to that of EEG in regards to the amount and type of information it could convey. This, however, was not true; the signal itself is quite different. The ECoG signal is much more robust compared to EEG signal: its magnitude is typically five times larger (0.05 - 1.0 versus 0.01-0.2 mV for EEG) [38], its spatial resolution as it relates to electrode spacing is much finer (0.125 versus 3.0 cm for EEG)[39, 40], and its frequency bandwidth is significantly higher (0-200 Hz versus 0- 40 Hz for EEG). When analyzed on a functional level many studies have revealed that higher frequency bandwidths, unavailable to EEG methods, carry highly specific and anatomically focal information about cortical processing [41-44]. ECoG’s superior frequency range is attributable to two factors. First, the capacitance of cell membranes of the overlying tissue combined with their intrinsic electrical resistance constitutes a low-pass (RC) filter that largely eliminates higher frequencies from the EEG [40]. Second, higher frequencies tend to be produced by smaller cortical assemblies (38). Thus, they are more prominent at electrodes that are closer to cortex than EEG electrodes and thereby achieve higher spatial resolution [40].

Recent studies have cogently demonstrated its effectiveness as a signal in BCI application. Leuthardt et al. in 2004 revealed the first use of ECoG in closed loop control. Over brief training periods of 3-24 min, four patients mastered control and achieved success rates of 74-100% in one-dimensional tasks. In additional experiments, the same group found that ECoG signals at frequencies up to 180 Hz accurately reflected the direction of two-dimensional joystick movements [45]. Soon after Schalk, et al. in 2004 demonstrates two dimensional online control using independent signals at high frequencies inconspicuous to that appreciable by EEG [46]. Additionally, Leuthardt et al. in 2005 demonstrated that ECoG control using signal from the epidural space was also possible [47]. All these studies combined show the ECoG signal to carry a high level of specific cortical information which can allow the user to gain control very rapidly. Beyond the technical demonstration of ECoG BCI feasibility, there is some pathologic and clinical evidence to support the implant viability of subdural based devices. There is an extensive body of literature investigating the tissue response to intraparenchymal cortical electrodes and their associated signal prohibitive reactive gliotic sheaths [25, 26]. Though more limited, the studies that have been performed investigating non-penetrating subdural placed electrodes, however, have been more encouraging. In a cat and dog models, long term subdural implants showed minimal cortical or leptomeningeal tissue reaction while maintaining prolonged electrophysiologic recording [48-51]. In clinical studies the use of subdural electrodes as implants for motor cortex stimulation have been shown to be stable and effective implants for the treatment of chronic pain [52-54]. Additionally, preliminary work using the implantable Neuropace device for the purpose of long term subdural electrode monitoring for seizure identification and abortion has also been shown to be stable [55].

This deserves inclusion (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Factual Error?

Article states "ECoG technologies were first trialed in humans in 2004 by Eric Leuthardt and Daniel Moran from Washington University in St Louis." The UM-DBI project did this long before that (2000ish?). Their website:link 141.214.17.17 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Computer->brain interface

Wikipedia seems to lack information about this. We have Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation, but what about artificially inducing thoughts or feelings? I recall reading that it's possible to artificially induce the feeling of Deja Vu. Here's something:[2]. CannibalSmith (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 24, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

• Too much of the information in this article is unsourced. There has been a request for citation outstanding for a month. Much of the article reads like a personal essay. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Refrences: Ethical Considerations section

I don’t understand how to do the referencing function, but here’s at least a few direct examples of the ethical considerations being discussed: In the Star Trek NG episode “The Game” (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Ktarian_game), a non-invasive BCI is used in an attempt to gain control of USS ENTERPRISE; In the role playing game Shadowrun, invasive BCI are used to control computers in a virtual-reality like environment- Where they can be killed. This was explored a second time on the X-FILES, in which a VR character comes to life and starts killing every male in the game (including the ability to build her own M-1 Abrams). Robert A. HEINLEIN mentions the issue in passing and indirectly in “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.” Arthur C CLARK explores the issue of overly intelligent computers in “2ØØ1” (which was the reason such systems were never developed according to HEINLEIN'S TMIAHM).

You’re welcome. Next time do your own damned homework. 71.34.68.186 (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Andering REDDSON

None of those are actually usable sources. You can read WP:RS to see what counts as an acceptable source. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

brain to brain communication

I would like to explain why I have been reverting the item about brain-to-brain communication. There are three issues with it: (1) if something is important enough to justify a link, it ought to be discussed in the article -- we don't want to turn Wikipedia articles into link farms, (2) press releases and youtube videos are not generally considered good sources, (3) the experiment is just plain silly. Anybody familiar with EEG could predict that it was going to work; it has no scientific value. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, yeah. It's not direct brain-to-brain communication if it involves the internet, computers and LEDs. Surely Dr James doesn't actually believe these claims?! Fences&Windows 03:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Some lightweight online tech blogs have fallen for it:[3]. Fences&Windows 03:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

stroke section

This whole section needs to be tone way the heck down. we cannot be saying stuff actually works based on pilot trials, and this all needs to be sourced per WP:MEDRS

Stroke recovery

Many groups are exploring BCI technology to improve stroke recovery. Most persons affected by stroke have difficulty with upper limb movements. In 2012, a large clinical trial collected EEG data from 54 chronic stroke patients in performing motor imagery of the stroke-affected hand, and the result showed majority of the stroke patients (87%) could use BCI (). Subsequently, a single-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted to investigate the clinical efficacy of BCI system coupled with MIT-Manus should-elbow robotic feedback. Eleven stroke patients were recruited to undergo 4 weeks of the BCI-Manus therapy (). The results of the trial showed that the BCI-Manus therapy is effective and safe for arm rehabilitation after severe poststroke hemiparesis. Another clinical trial was performed to investigate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor imagery BCI for stroke rehabilitation. The results showed Upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMMA) scores improved in both the groups that received tDCS and sham-tDCS, but accuracies of performing motor imagery were significantly higher in the tDCS group, which suggests a role of tDCS in facilitating motor imagery in stroke (). A three-arm randomized control trial was also performed to assess the clinical efficacy of BCI coupled with a Haptic Knob robot (BCI-HK) therapy compared to Haptic Knob (HK) robot therapy and standard arm therapy (SAT). The results showed significantly larger motor gains in the BCI-HK therapy compared to the SAT, but gains in the HK group did not differ from the SAT group (). A total of 26 chronic stroke patients were recruited in these 3 clinical trials to undergo BCI stroke rehabilitation. The results showed that these patients had significant improvement of 4.5 measured by (FMMA) of the upper extremity (). Thus results from the clinical trials demonstrated clinical efficacy of using BCI for stroke recovery.

Some persons affected by stroke have difficulty with lower limb movements, including gait while walking. The new approach typically uses conventional tools for gait rehabilitation, such as an exoskeleton and EMG sensors, along with EEG-based tools to evaluate motor signals (). Related research instead addresses motor recovery for upper-limb movement disabilities. This approach also combines BCI methods and systems with state-of-the-art methods, such as a functional electrical stimulation (FES) system or virtual representation of a hand (). The BCI-based approach leverages the concept of paired associative stimulation (PAS), meaning that the system's activities are paired with the user's movement imagery. Since measuring movement imagery with real-time feedback requires a BCI, BCI-based approaches can help evaluate whether a user is successfully performing the movement imagery tasks required for therapy. Similar research explores fundamental changes in functional brain networks, which could be applied to new systems that better assess each patient and provide improved recovery ().

This research direction aims to address an underlying concern with conventional stroke rehabilitation. Although the goal of this rehabilitation is to produce changes in the brain, conventional stroke rehabilitation tools do not measure brain activity. Thus, the system might present rewarding feedback - such as presenting "Good Job" on the monitor or activating an FES system to close the fingers - when the patient was not actually performing any movement imagery. This research direction has contributed to a new system for BCI-based stroke recovery called RecoveriX.

A related research project called MoreGrasp aims to help persons with spinal cord injury. Although these injuries are to the peripheral nervous system, BCI technology with FES and other tools could also help persons with spinal cord injury regain grasp control. The MoreGrasp project is active from 2015-2018 and is coordinated by the BCI Lab at the Graz University of Technology.ted by the BCI Lab at the Graz University of Technology.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Brain–computer interface. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219060005/http://www.dukemedicine.org:80/AboutUs/Facts_and_Statistics/historical_highlights/index/view to http://www.dukemedicine.org/AboutUs/Facts_and_Statistics/historical_highlights/index/view
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704125118/http://www.pittsburghlive.com:8000/x/tribunereview/s_469059.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com:8000/x/tribunereview/s_469059.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930040330/http://www-ti.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/%7Eschroedm/papers/ne2003_Bogdan.pdf.gz to http://www-ti.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/%7Eschroedm/papers/ne2003_Bogdan.pdf.gz
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131221003129/http://www.wlv.ac.uk/default.aspx?page=31642 to http://www.wlv.ac.uk/default.aspx?page=31642&bnnr=stech.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110530064212/http://www.gazette-news.co.uk:80/features/woman/8970998.When_mind_over_matter_has_a_whole_new_meaning/ to http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/features/woman/8970998.When_mind_over_matter_has_a_whole_new_meaning
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910201747/http://wired.com:80/news/technology/medtech/0,65422-0.html to http://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0,65422-0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518071837/http://www.eurekanetwork.org/fyrom/about/-/journal_content/56/10137/4607160 to http://www.eurekanetwork.org/fyrom/about/-/journal_content/56/10137/4607160
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cec.sonus.ca/econtact/14_2/gupta-palanappian_interfacedesign.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brain–computer interface. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/mmpi/papers/Lebedev%202006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830164629/http://www.darpa.mil:80/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=538 to http://www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=538
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407071853/http://www.wikipatents.com/US-Patent-6729337/method-and-system-for-generating-sensory-data-onto-the-human-neural to http://www.wikipatents.com/US-Patent-6729337/method-and-system-for-generating-sensory-data-onto-the-human-neural
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518071837/http://www.eurekanetwork.org/fyrom/about/-/journal_content/56/10137/4607160 to http://www.eurekanetwork.org/fyrom/about/-/journal_content/56/10137/4607160

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brain–computer interface. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-ti.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~schroedm/papers/ne2003_Bogdan.pdf.gz
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=538
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mts.hindawi.com/utils/GetFile.aspx?msid=25487&vnum=2&ftype=manuscript
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0%2C65422-0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518071837/http://www.eurekanetwork.org/fyrom/about/-/journal_content/56/10137/4607160 to http://www.eurekanetwork.org/fyrom/about/-/journal_content/56/10137/4607160

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brain–computer interface. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090910034547/http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/?p=1478 to http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/?p=1478

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding content under the Ethical considerations section

Hi all, I see that the text I added was removed. After seeing a comment on my user talk page and reading WP:EXPERT, I'm hereby opening this section as a deep learning expert to ask to add the content that I wrote and previously tried to add. Here is the content I would like to add, as subtitles of the "Ethical considerations" section:

The case for open-source software

With rising awareness of the public on the importance of privacy, it's not surprising to see new regulation such as GDPR making its entry into European law.

It is believed by some that open-source software is the only way to achieve trust between the users and the software they use. For instance, such tools may need to be entirely open-source to be trusted and audited by the world (like blockchain technology), and executed locally (not in the cloud) for security.

References

The BCI as a means to prevent the obsolescence of humans in front of the rise of artificial intelligence

With the rise of artificial intelligence, a hypothetical scenario is that artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence (AI takeover), as predicted by Ray Kurtzweil for example. With that in mind comes the possibility to ask oneself: could we be the machine instead of being surpassed by machines? Elon Musk also believes that AI takeover might take place. As such, he suggests that the BCI is a way to keep humans in the loop. Analyzing possibles outcomes, he reportedly thinks that being the machines ourselves is the least risky outcome in front of the rise of AI, and that people would better embrace this change as a mean to protect themselves.

Note that I tried to read the guidelines and to act accordingly hereby. If anything, just let me know.

Thank you,

GChe (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Wanting to add image, but don't know about copyright policy?

Wanted to add this image, but unsure if I am allowed to: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S246845111730082X-gr1.jpg

Mr Robot 2020 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you'd need to disclose the exact source. Unless you have created it yourself, I think it's very unlikely to be free of copyright. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A block diagram featuring arbitrary verbs like "improve", "restore", "enhance" etc. would not be useful without sourced text explaining the relevance of these. Also the image claims to illustrate "Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering" —which would require WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The original source, as far as I know, is figure 1.3 on page 4 of the Brain-Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practices book by OUP, which is in copyright. Furthermore, the indicated source lists separate copyright licenses for the "Supplement" and "Improve" images used in this diagram. As such, this image does not appear to have a Wikipedia-compatible license. Lrkrol (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Compassionate AI Lab

Is the reference to the Compassionate AI Lab (in the low-cost interface section) WP:DUE? Their leader (according to their site), Amit Ray, seems to be primarily known as a spiritual leader, and their site also promotes his religious ideas ("We are greatly inspired by the words and teachings of compassionate AI master and spiritual scientist Sri Amit Ray. ... His artistic vigor, humanitarian ideals, true independence of mind, genuine love and gentleness find answers to the eternal questions confronting humanity."). Some of the claims he and the lab make about the lab's projects seem implausible (e.g. talking about quantum computing as though it's already usable for AI) or overly broad (from the lab's website: "Our vision: Realizing the full potential of the latest high end technologies like Artificial Intelligence, Cellular reprogramming, Quantum computing, Robotics, omics data integration, brain-computer interface, and precision medicine to eradicate human pain and sufferings and bring joy and happiness at all levels ."). And the only reference for it just goes to Ray's website. Could someone who's more of an expert on AI or BCI confirm whether the Compassionate AI Lab is scientifically credible and, if so, whether they're important enough to be discussed here? - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi all! I am a WikiProject Medicine student with a research background in BCIs.

Hello, everyone! I am a medical student participating in a WikiProject Medicine course. My research background is in BCI/neurophysiology and I wanted to do my article edit on BCIs. This Wikipedia page entitled "brain-computer interface" will, I believe, gain more and more traction as the field continues to develop. It will be important for anyone researching BCIs, whether they be in medicine/science or not, to gain an understanding of the history, present, and future of this field.

Areas of this article that I plan to spruce up, in the form of additional information or citations, which lie closest to my realm of research, include:

• 4.1 Invasive BCIs: Communication BCIs have a long history, and I would like to add the oft-cited communication metrics for BCIs (wpm, etc.), and important milestones in recent years, along with appropriate references. There has also been an emergence of interest in using BCIs for stroke rehabilitation, and I hope to add some detail about that here.
• 4.2 Partially invasive BCIs: Many of the field's most recent successes have emerged from this area, in the realm of partially invasive BCIs. I think it would be of use to comment on various speech applications using ECoG, as well as more detail surrounding the use of interventional neurology to deliver devices to the brain, and expand on the benefits/drawbacks of this technique relative to other techniques. These benefits/drawbacks have been addressed in recent review articles and I wish to cite them here.
• 4.3.3 Electroencephalography (EEG)-based brain-computer interfaces: A few systematic reviews have been conducted assessing the utility of EEG-based BCIs in upper extremity rehabilitation post-stroke, which I plan to reference in this section.
• 8 Future Directions: In regards to medical applications of BCIs, I'd like to cite the recently published FDA Guidance on BCIs. This has been proposed as a framework to guide groups attempting to use BCIs in medicine.

I think it would also be of use to include a section on technical limitations to BCIs, perhaps under the 'Human BCI research' header or in between headers 7 and 8. It would be of use to inform readers of electronic, materials, biological, and surgical limitations to implantable BCI systems. As these are currently active areas of engineering, it would be of use to inform the community about specific limitations that have held up the BCI transition to outside the laboratory setting.

Any feedback/collaboration on this would be welcomed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcclanahan (talk • contribs)

Hi @Amcclanahan! Very excited for the updates you're planning, they sound great! Thanks for taking on this article!! I'm also a starting Wikipedian interested in neuroscience and BCIs, so feel free to reach out if you'd like to collaborate sometime. I don't know if you've already checked it out, but just in case: I have found WikiProject Neuroscience to have some really useful resources, and putting your name down as a participant is a good way to spark collaborations too. Have fun with it all! :) Cffisac (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Amcclanahan

Link to draft you're reviewing

Brain–computer interface

Peer review

I utilized Wikipedia's Peer Review template, which breaks peer review down into these categories:

Lead

• The lead section is a great introduction to the topic of brain-computer interface. It is short and to the point, as suggested by the Wiki writing style guide.
• The author implemented small changes that further clarified what modalities are classified as non-invasive, partially invasive, and invasive.
• I think this is a great lead paragraph. I don't recommend any changes to this section.

Content

• Endovascular Section:
  • I appreciated the addition of the Stentrode paragraph in the endovascular section. The author used very recent and relevant research to keep this WikiPage up to date. This is such a new and forth coming field so I imagine there will be many additions to this page over time.
  • The additions are well-cited and linked appropriately to their respective Wiki Pages when needed.
  • I do find this section to be very medical terminology heavy, however, I believe that is unavoidable due to the complex nature of this topic. If possible, it may be beneficial to try to keep wording to easily digestible material for the general public - but I recognize how difficult this is with this topic.
• ECoG Section:
  • Again, the author added groundbreaking and recent research to the article to keep it up to date.
  • I think this was a nice update that highlights how far the medical community has come with this type of technology.
• EEG Section:
  • In this section specifically the author added a systemic review of randomized controlled trials - which is the gold standard for citations for Wiki.
  • I think this was a useful addition to this section to summarize the efficacy and potential of this technology.

Tone and Balance

• The author added some clarification to the wording in the communication section that helps the flow of the section.

Sources and Resources

• The author used many peer reviewed sources to back up his statements.
• As this is a new and emerging topic, he tried to use systemic reviews when possible.
• Since this is such an evolving field, the author properly cited primary research when necessary to keep the article up to date.

Organization

• I think the Wiki Page is well organized.
• I don't have any recommended changes.

Images and Media

• I really appreciated the hand-drawn image that the author added to the article. It very simply shows the differences between the modalities of BCIs.
• This was a great addition to the article and is visually pleasing to audiences.

Overall impressions

• The authors significantly contributed to this article's development.
• He tried his best to use systematic reviews and text book material, but this is such a new and evolving field that required primary sources to show the progress the medical community has made in recent years.
• I believe it may be hard for the lay person to read this entire article, but I also think that is due to the complexity of the topic.
• The author used appropriate linking and clarification to keep the article as easy to read as possible.

KevP25 (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 March 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dispencer17. Peer reviewers: Nduc5420.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Brain technology into Brain–computer interface. The content in Brain technology is very short, it only mentions Brain-computer interfaces as there does not appear to be any other technologies. Futal (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really. There will be some other technology (e.g. FMRI scanners, etc) that are not BCIs but they are still "brain tech". Orbitingelectron (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. @Orbitingelectron has mentioned FMRI scanners and other brain technology that might be put into that page but FMRI scanners already have their own pages. I presume that future technology that doesn't have BCI applications will also just have thier own pages created. The Brain technology page is basically just talking about BCIs anyway. Rudyon (talk) Rudyon (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Support merge. Three of the six references are even using the term "Brain-computer interface." Joyous! | Talk 22:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No info about the man holding the current record for wearing a BCI for the longest.

https://www.wired.com/story/this-man-set-the-record-for-wearing-a-brain-computer-interface/

No info about other people currently wearing one or who wore one in the past, either.

No BCI in popular culture (RoboCop). George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Digital Media and Information in Society

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bart Casabona (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Stevesuny (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating ethics section

Hello everyone, I noticed that you ethical consideration section could use some work as the information seems to be a little outdated and sparse of substance. I was wondering if it would be ok for me to revise the ethics page with more recent scholarly sources and explore that topic in a more indepth way? Bart Casabona (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Section: History, para 2: "Berger's first recording device was very rudimentary and was a harpsichord"

Could someone explain "and was a harpsichord". It doesn't seem to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.181.252 (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that could be explained, so I've removed it. The whole paragraph is unsourced. But I see it is also wholly unsourced at Hans Berger#Research. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)