↓ Skip to main content

Complete Locked-in and Locked-in Patients: Command Following Assessment and Communication with Vibro-Tactile P300 and Motor Imagery Brain-Computer Interface Tools

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 11,542)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
74 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Complete Locked-in and Locked-in Patients: Command Following Assessment and Communication with Vibro-Tactile P300 and Motor Imagery Brain-Computer Interface Tools
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00251
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Guger, Rossella Spataro, Brendan Z. Allison, Alexander Heilinger, Rupert Ortner, Woosang Cho, Vincenzo La Bella

Abstract

Many patients with locked-in syndrome (LIS) or complete locked-in syndrome (CLIS) also need brain-computer interface (BCI) platforms that do not rely on visual stimuli and are easy to use. We investigate command following and communication functions of mindBEAGLE with 9 LIS, 3 CLIS patients and three healthy controls. This tests were done with vibro-tactile stimulation with 2 or 3 stimulators (VT2 and VT3 mode) and with motor imagery (MI) paradigms. In VT2 the stimulators are fixed on the left and right wrist and the participant has the task to count the stimuli on the target hand in order to elicit a P300 response. In VT3 mode an additional stimulator is placed as a distractor on the shoulder and the participant is counting stimuli either on the right or left hand. In motor imagery mode the participant is instructed to imagine left or right hand movement. VT3 and MI also allow the participant to answer yes and no questions. Healthy controls achieved a mean assessment accuracy of 100% in VT2, 93% in VT3, and 73% in MI modes. They were able to communicate with VT3 (86.7%) and MI (83.3%) after 2 training runs. The patients achieved a mean accuracy of 76.6% in VT2, 63.1% in VT3, and 58.2% in MI modes after 1-2 training runs. 9 out of 12 LIS patients could communicate by using the vibro-tactile P300 paradigms (answered on average 8 out of 10 questions correctly) and 3 out of 12 could communicate with the motor imagery paradigm (answered correctly 4,7 out of 5 questions). 2 out of the 3 CLIS patients could use the system to communicate with VT3 (90 and 70% accuracy). The results show that paradigms based on non-visual evoked potentials and motor imagery can be effective for these users. It is also the first study that showed EEG-based BCI communication with CLIS patients and was able to bring 9 out of 12 patients to communicate with higher accuracies than reported before. More importantly this was achieved within less than 15-20 min.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 149 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 19%
Researcher 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 25 17%
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 34 23%
Neuroscience 29 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 8%
Psychology 10 7%
Computer Science 10 7%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 37 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 597. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2022.
All research outputs
#38,333
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#13
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#756
of 324,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#1
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.