ArticleNeurosurgical focus2020
Utility and lower limits of frequency detection in surface electrode stimulation for somatosensory brain-computer interface in humans.
Article in Neurosurgical focus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in neuroprosthetic technologies to restore sensations.Biomedical engineering letters · 2026Review
- Workshops of the Eighth International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting: BCIs: The Next Frontier.Brain computer interfaces (Abingdon, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveStimulation of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) has been successful in evoking artificial somatosensation in both humans and animals, but much is unknown about the optimal stimulation parameters needed to generate robust percepts of somatosensation. In this study, the authors investigated frequency as an adjustable stimulation parameter for artificial somatosensation in a closed-loop brain-computer interface (BCI) system.
methodsThree epilepsy patients with subdural mini-electrocorticography grids over the hand area of S1 were asked to compare the percepts elicited with different stimulation frequencies. Amplitude, pulse width, and duration were held constant across all trials. In each trial, subjects experienced 2 stimuli and reported which they thought was given at a higher stimulation frequency. Two paradigms were used: first, 50 versus 100 Hz to establish the utility of comparing frequencies, and then 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 Hz were pseudorandomly compared.
resultsAs the magnitude of the stimulation frequency was increased, subjects described percepts that were "more intense" or "faster." Cumulatively, the participants achieved 98.0% accuracy when comparing stimulation at 50 and 100 Hz. In the second paradigm, the corresponding overall accuracy was 73.3%. If both tested frequencies were less than or equal to 10 Hz, accuracy was 41.7% and increased to 79.4% when one frequency was greater than 10 Hz (p = 0.01). When both stimulation frequencies were 20 Hz or less, accuracy was 40.7% compared with 91.7% when one frequency was greater than 20 Hz (p < 0.001). Accuracy was 85% in trials in which 50 Hz was the higher stimulation frequency. Therefore, the lower limit of detection occurred at 20 Hz, and accuracy decreased significantly when lower frequencies were tested. In trials testing 10 Hz versus 20 Hz, accuracy was 16.7% compared with 85.7% in trials testing 20 Hz versus 50 Hz (p < 0.05). Accuracy was greater than chance at frequency differences greater than or equal to 30 Hz.
conclusionsFrequencies greater than 20 Hz may be used as an adjustable parameter to elicit distinguishable percepts. These findings may be useful in informing the settings and the degrees of freedom achievable in future BCI systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.