Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33501008›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2018

High Classification Accuracy of a Motor Imagery Based Brain-Computer Interface for Stroke Rehabilitation Training.

Danut C Irimia, Rupert Ortner, Marian S Poboroniuc, Bogdan E Ignat, Christoph Guger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. EEG-based sensorimotor neurofeedback for motor neurorehabilitation in children and adults: A scoping review.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. The evolution of neuromodulation for chronic stroke: From neuroplasticity mechanisms to brain-computer interfaces.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

5 authors.

Danut C Irimiag.tec Medical Engineering GmbH, Schiedlberg, Austria.
Rupert Ortnerg.tec Medical Engineering GmbH, Schiedlberg, Austria.
Marian S PoboroniucGheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania.
Bogdan E IgnatGrigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iasi, Romania.
Christoph Gugerg.tec Medical Engineering GmbH, Schiedlberg, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motor imagery (MI) based brain-computer interfaces (BCI) extract commands in real-time and can be used to control a cursor, a robot or functional electrical stimulation (FES) devices. The control of FES devices is especially interesting for stroke rehabilitation, when a patient can use motor imagery to stimulate specific muscles in real-time. However, damage to motor areas resulting from stroke or other causes might impair control of a motor imagery BCI for rehabilitation. The current work presents a comparative evaluation of the MI-based BCI control accuracy between stroke patients and healthy subjects. Five patients who had a stroke that affected the motor system participated in the current study, and were trained across 10-24 sessions lasting about 1 h each with the recoveriX system. The participants' EEG data were classified while they imagined left or right hand movements, and real-time feedback was provided on a monitor. If the correct imagination was detected, the FES was also activated to move the left or right hand. The grand average mean accuracy was 87.4% for all patients and sessions. All patients were able to achieve at least one session with a maximum accuracy above 96%. Both the mean accuracy and the maximum accuracy were surprisingly high and above results seen with healthy controls in prior studies. Importantly, the study showed that stroke patients can control a MI BCI system with high accuracy relative to healthy persons. This may occur because these patients are highly motivated to participate in a study to improve their motor functions. Participants often reported early in the training of motor improvements and this caused additional motivation. However, it also reflects the efficacy of combining motor imagination, seeing continuous bar feedback, and real hand movement that also activates the tactile and proprioceptive systems. Results also suggested that motor function could improve even if classification accuracy did not, and suggest other new questions to explore in future work. Future studies will also be done with a first-person view 3D avatar to provide improved feedback and thereby increase each patients' sense of engagement.

Indexed as

brain-computer interfaceclassification accuracymotor imageryrehabilitationstroke

Identifiers

PMID33501008
PMCPMC7805943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.