Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27900953›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neural engineering2017

Feedback control policies employed by people using intracortical brain-computer interfaces.

Francis R Willett, Chethan Pandarinath, Beata Jarosiewicz, Brian A Murphy, William D Memberg, Christine H Blabe, Jad Saab, Benjamin L Walter, Jennifer A Sweet, Jonathan P Miller and 6 more

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neural engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Neural trajectories improve motor precision.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Speech motor cortex enables BCI cursor control and click.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Francis R WillettDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Chethan PandarinathDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Beata JarosiewiczDepartment of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Brian A MurphyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
William D MembergDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Christine H BlabeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jad SaabCenter for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Rehabilitation R&D Service, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA.
Benjamin L WalterLouis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, FES Center of Excellence, Rehab. R&D Service, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Jennifer A SweetLouis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, FES Center of Excellence, Rehab. R&D Service, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Jonathan P MillerLouis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, FES Center of Excellence, Rehab. R&D Service, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Jaimie M HendersonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Krishna V ShenoyDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
John D SimeralCenter for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Rehabilitation R&D Service, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA.
Leigh R HochbergCenter for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Rehabilitation R&D Service, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA.
Robert F KirschDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
A Bolu AjiboyeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Funding

Engaging new cognitive and motor signals to improve communication prosthesesR01DC014034 · NIDCD · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI JAIMIE M HENDERSON · 2015 to 2026
$8.2M
Restoring Communication with an Intracortical Neural Interface SystemR01DC009899 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HOCHBERG, LEIGH R · 2009 to 2017
$7.0M
Integrated Neural Engineering and Rehabilitation Training ProgramT32EB004314 · NIBIB · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI Jeffrey R Capadona, Robert F. Kirsch · 2004 to 2026
$6.1M
Toward an Animal Model of Freely Moving HumansR01NS066311 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BLACK, MICHAEL J, SHENOY, KRISHNA V · 2009 to 2012
$2.9M
Intracortical control of FES-restored arm and hand function in people with SCIR01HD077220 · NICHD · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KIRSCH, ROBERT F. · 2014 to 2017
$1.7M
Influencing Children's Beliefs Through LanguageR03HD053403 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI KEEN, RACHEL ELIZABETH · 2007 to 2008
$150k
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB004314NICHD NIH HHS N01 HD053403NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD077220NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC009899NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014034NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS066311
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWhen using an intracortical BCI (iBCI), users modulate their neural population activity to move an effector towards a target, stop accurately, and correct for movement errors. We call the rules that govern this modulation a 'feedback control policy'. A better understanding of these policies may inform the design of higher-performing neural decoders. APPROACH: We studied how three participants in the BrainGate2 pilot clinical trial used an iBCI to control a cursor in a 2D target acquisition task. Participants used a velocity decoder with exponential smoothing dynamics. Through offline analyses, we characterized the users' feedback control policies by modeling their neural activity as a function of cursor state and target position. We also tested whether users could adapt their policy to different decoder dynamics by varying the gain (speed scaling) and temporal smoothing parameters of the iBCI. MAIN

resultsWe demonstrate that control policy assumptions made in previous studies do not fully describe the policies of our participants. To account for these discrepancies, we propose a new model that captures (1) how the user's neural population activity gradually declines as the cursor approaches the target from afar, then decreases more sharply as the cursor comes into contact with the target, (2) how the user makes constant feedback corrections even when the cursor is on top of the target, and (3) how the user actively accounts for the cursor's current velocity to avoid overshooting the target. Further, we show that users can adapt their control policy to decoder dynamics by attenuating neural modulation when the cursor gain is high and by damping the cursor velocity more strongly when the smoothing dynamics are high. SIGNIFICANCE: Our control policy model may help to build better decoders, understand how neural activity varies during active iBCI control, and produce better simulations of closed-loop iBCI movements.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalTask Performance and AnalysisBiofeedback, PsychologyBrainComputer SimulationEvoked Potentials, MotorFeedback, PhysiologicalFemaleHumansImaginationMaleMiddle AgedMovementPilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID27900953
PMCPMC5239755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.