Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Study Types
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.3. Research Questions
- (1)
- What pathology did the patient cohorts present with?
- (2)
- How successful are intracortical BCIs in restoring communication?
- (3)
- How many electrodes were used for implantation in intracortical devices?
- (4)
- What task did subjects have to perform for the BCI device to convert into a method of communication?
- (5)
- How successful are ECoG devices in restoring communication?
- (6)
- What promise do sEEG devices have in restoring communication?
- (7)
- Which anatomical region of the brain do BCIs target to facilitate communication?
3. Results
3.1. Patient Profile
3.2. Intracortical Implants
3.3. ECoG-Based Studies
3.4. SEEG-Based Studies
4. Discussion
5. Ethics
6. Conclusions
7. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Felgoise, S.H.; Zaccheo, V.; Duff, J.; Simmons, Z. Verbal communication impacts quality of life in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. Front. Degener. 2016, 17, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohnen, R.F.; Lavrijsen, J.C.M.; Bor, J.H.J.; Koopmans, R.T.C.M. The prevalence and characteristics of patients with classic locked-in syndrome in Dutch nursing homes. J. Neurol. 2013, 260, 1527–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Voity, K.; Lopez, T.; Chan, J.P.; Greenwald, B.D. Update on How to Approach a Patient with Locked-In Syndrome and Their Communication Ability. Brain Sci. 2024, 14, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brumberg, J.S.; Pitt, K.M.; Mantie-Kozlowski, A.; Burnison, J.D. Brain–Computer Interfaces for Augmentative and Alternative Communication: A Tutorial. Am. J. Speech-Lang. Pathol. 2018, 27, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fager, S.K.; Fried-Oken, M.; Jakobs, T.; Beukelman, D.R. New and emerging access technologies for adults with complex communication needs and severe motor impairments: State of the science. Augment. Altern. Commun. 2019, 35, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oken, B.S.; Orhan, U.; Roark, B.; Erdogmus, D.; Fowler, A.; Mooney, A.; Peters, B.; Miller, M.; Fried-Oken, M.B. Brain–computer interface with language model–electroencephalography fusion for locked-in syndrome. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair. 2013, 28, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S.; Anderson, W.; Constandinou, T. Surgical Implantation of Brain Computer Interfaces. JAMA Surg. 2024, 159, 219–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S.; Aziz, T. Transcending the brain: Is there a cost to hacking the nervous system? Brain Commun. 2019, 1, fcz015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-de Thomas, R.; Munakomi, S.; De Jesus, O. Craniotomy; StatPearls Publishing: St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Pun, T.K.; Khoshnevis, M.; Hosman, T.; Wilson, G.H.; Kapitonava, A.; Kamdar, F.; Henderson, J.M.; Simeral, J.D.; Vargas-Irwin, C.E.; Harrison, M.T.; et al. Measuring instability in chronic human intracortical neural recordings towards stable, long-term brain-computer interfaces. Commun. Biol. 2024, 7, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Card, N.S.; Wairagkar, M.; Iacobacci, C.; Hou, X.; Singer-Clark, T.; Willett, F.R.; Kunz, E.M.; Fan, C.; Vahdati Nia, M.; Deo, D.R.; et al. An Accurate and Rapidly Calibrating Speech Neuroprosthesis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2024, 391, 609–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, A.B.; Liu, J.R.; Metzger, S.L.; Bhaya-Grossman, I.; Dougherty, M.E.; Seaton, M.P.; Littlejohn, K.T.; Tu-Chan, A.; Ganguly, K.; Moses, D.A.; et al. A bilingual speech neuroprosthesis driven by cortical articulatory representations shared between languages. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2024, 8, 977–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wandelt, S.K.; Bjanes, D.A.; Pejsa, K.; Lee, B.; Liu, C.; Andersen, R.A. Representation of internal speech by single neurons in human supramarginal gyrus. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2024, 8, 1136–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Angrick, M.; Luo, S.; Rabbani, Q.; Candrea, D.N.; Shah, S.; Milsap, G.W.; Anderson, W.S.; Gordon, C.R.; Rosenblatt, K.R.; Clawson, L.; et al. Online speech synthesis using a chronically implanted brain–computer interface in an individual with ALS. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tankus, A.; Rosenberg, N.; Ben-Hamo, O.; Stern, E.; Strauss, I. Machine learning decoding of single neurons in the thalamus for speech brain-machine interfaces. J. Neural Eng. 2024, 21, 036009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vansteensel, M.J.; Leinders, S.; Branco, M.P.; Crone, N.E.; Denison, T.; Freudenburg, Z.V.; Geukes, S.H.; Gosselaar, P.H.; Raemaekers, M.; Schippers, A.; et al. Longevity of a Brain–Computer Interface for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2024, 391, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.; Wellington, S.; Fu, Z.; Zhang, D. Speech decoding from stereo-electroencephalography (sEEG) signals using advanced deep learning methods. J. Neural Eng. 2024, 21, 036055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, S.; Angrick, M.; Coogan, C.; Candrea, D.N.; Wyse-Sookoo, K.; Shah, S.; Rabbani, Q.; Milsap, G.W.; Weiss, A.R.; Anderson, W.S.; et al. Stable Decoding from a Speech BCI Enables Control for an Individual with ALS without Recalibration for 3 Months. Adv. Sci. 2023, 10, e2304853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Chen, X.; Khalilian-Gourtani, A.; Yu, L.; Dugan, P.; Friedman, D.; Doyle, W.; Devinsky, O.; Wang, Y.; Flinker, A. Distributed feedforward and feedback cortical processing supports human speech production. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2300255120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metzger, S.L.; Littlejohn, K.T.; Silva, A.B.; Moses, D.A.; Seaton, M.P.; Wang, R.; Dougherty, M.E.; Liu, J.R.; Wu, P.; Berger, M.A.; et al. A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control. Nature 2023, 620, 1037–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willett, F.R.; Kunz, E.M.; Fan, C.; Avansino, D.T.; Wilson, G.H.; Choi, E.Y.; Kamdar, F.; Glasser, M.F.; Hochberg, L.R.; Druckmann, S.; et al. A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis. Nature 2023, 620, 1031–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berezutskaya, J.; Freudenburg, Z.V.; Vansteensel, M.J.; Aarnoutse, E.J.; Ramsey, N.F.; Gerven, M.A.J.v. Direct speech reconstruction from sensorimotor brain activity with optimized deep learning models. J. Neural Eng. 2023, 20, 056010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Metzger, S.L.; Liu, J.R.; Moses, D.A.; Dougherty, M.E.; Seaton, M.P.; Littlejohn, K.T.; Chartier, J.; Anumanchipalli, G.K.; Tu-Chan, A.; Ganguly, K.; et al. Generalizable spelling using a speech neuroprosthesis in an individual with severe limb and vocal paralysis. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, D.; Xu, X.; Li, D.; Li, J.; Yu, X.; Ling, Z.; Hong, B. Intracranial brain-computer interface spelling using localized visual motion response. NeuroImage 2022, 258, 119363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wandelt, S.K.; Kellis, S.; Bjånes, D.A.; Pejsa, K.; Lee, B.; Liu, C.; Andersen, R.A. Decoding grasp and speech signals from the cortical grasp circuit in a tetraplegic human. Neuron 2022, 110, 1777–1787.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tankus, A.; Solomon, L.; Aharony, Y.; Faust-Socher, A.; Strauss, I. Machine learning algorithm for decoding multiple subthalamic spike trains for speech brain–machine interfaces. J. Neural Eng. 2021, 18, 066021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angrick, M.; Ottenhoff, M.C.; Diener, L.; Ivucic, D.; Ivucic, G.; Goulis, S.; Saal, J.; Colon, A.J.; Wagner, L.; Krusienski, D.J.; et al. Real-time synthesis of imagined speech processes from minimally invasive recordings of neural activity. Commun. Biol. 2021, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dekleva, B.M.; Weiss, J.M.; Boninger, M.L.; Collinger, J.L. Generalizable cursor click decoding using grasp-related neural transients. J. Neural Eng. 2021, 18, 0460e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moses, D.A.; Metzger, S.L.; Liu, J.R.; Anumanchipalli, G.K.; Makin, J.G.; Sun, P.F.; Chartier, J.; Dougherty, M.E.; Liu, P.M.; Abrams, G.M.; et al. Neuroprosthesis for Decoding Speech in a Paralyzed Person with Anarthria. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simeral, J.D.; Hosman, T.; Saab, J.; Flesher, S.N.; Vilela, M.; Franco, B.; Kelemen, J.N.; Brandman, D.M.; Ciancibello, J.G.; Rezaii, P.G.; et al. Home Use of a Percutaneous Wireless Intracortical Brain-Computer Interface by Individuals With Tetraplegia. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2021, 68, 2313–2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leinders, S.; Vansteensel, M.J.; Branco, M.P.; Freudenburg, Z.V.; Pels, E.G.M.; Van der Vijgh, B.; Van Zandvoort, M.J.E.; Ramsey, N.F.; Aarnoutse, E.J. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex-based control with an implanted brain–computer interface. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stavisky, S.D.; Willett, F.R.; Wilson, G.H.; Murphy, B.A.; Rezaii, P.; Avansino, D.T.; Memberg, W.D.; Miller, J.P.; Kirsch, R.F.; Hochberg, L.R.; et al. Neural ensemble dynamics in dorsal motor cortex during speech in people with paralysis. eLife 2019, 8, e46015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anumanchipalli, G.K.; Chartier, J.; Chang, E.F. Speech synthesis from neural decoding of spoken sentences. Nature 2019, 568, 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nuyujukian, P.; Sanabria, J.A.; Saab, J.; Pandarinath, C.; Jarosiewicz, B.; Blabe, C.H.; Franco, B.; Mernoff, S.T.; Eskandar, E.N.; Simeral, J.D.; et al. Cortical control of a tablet computer by people with paralysis. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0204566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Milekovic, T.; Sarma, A.A.; Bacher, D.; Simeral, J.D.; Saab, J.; Pandarinath, C.; Sorice, B.L.; Blabe, C.; Oakley, E.M.; Tringale, K.R.; et al. Stable long-term BCI-enabled communication in ALS and locked-in syndrome using LFP signals. J. Neurophysiol. 2018, 120, 343–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandarinath, C.; Nuyujukian, P.; Blabe, C.H.; Sorice, B.L.; Saab, J.; Willett, F.R.; Hochberg, L.R.; Shenoy, K.V.; Henderson, J.M. High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain-computer interface. eLife 2017, 6, e18554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vansteensel, M.J.; Pels, E.G.; Bleichner, M.G.; Branco, M.P.; Denison, T.; Freudenburg, Z.V.; Gosselaar, P.; Leinders, S.; Ottens, T.H.; Boom, M.A.V.D.; et al. Fully Implanted Brain–Computer Interface in a Locked-In Patient with ALS. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 2060–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarosiewicz, B.; Sarma, A.A.; Bacher, D.; Masse, N.Y.; Simeral, J.D.; Sorice, B.; Oakley, E.M.; Blabe, C.; Pandarinath, C.; Gilja, V.; et al. Virtual typing by people with tetraplegia using a self-calibrating intracortical brain-computer interface. Sci. Transl. Med. 2015, 7, 313ra179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mugler, E.M.; Goldrick, M.; Rosenow, J.M.; Tate, M.C.; Slutzky, M.W. Decoding of articulatory gestures during word production using speech motor and premotor cortical activity. In Proceedings of the 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Milan, Italy, 25–29 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bacher, D.; Jarosiewicz, B.; Masse, N.Y.; Stavisky, S.D.; Simeral, J.D.; Newell, K.; Oakley, E.M.; Cash, S.S.; Friehs, G.; Hochberg, L.R. Neural Point-and-Click Communication by a Person With Incomplete Locked-In Syndrome. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair. 2015, 29, 462–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Márquez-Chin, C.; Popovic, M.R.; Sanin, E.; Chen, R.; Lozano, A.M. Real-time two-dimensional asynchronous control of a computer cursor with a single subdural electrode. J. Spinal Cord. Med. 2012, 35, 382–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simeral, J.D.; Kim, S.-P.; Black, M.J.; Donoghue, J.P.; Hochberg, L.R. Neural control of cursor trajectory and click by a human with tetraplegia 1000 days after implant of an intracortical microelectrode array. J. Neural Eng. 2011, 8, 025027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leuthardt, E.C.; Gaona, C.; Sharma, M.; Szrama, N.; Roland, J.; Freudenberg, Z.; Solis, J.; Breshears, J.; Schalk, G. Using the electrocorticographic speech network to control a brain–computer interface in humans. J. Neural Eng. 2011, 8, 036004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krusienski, D.J.; Shih, J.J. Control of a brain–computer interface using stereotactic depth electrodes in and adjacent to the hippocampus. J. Neural Eng. 2011, 8, 025006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, S.P.; Simeral, J.D.; Hochberg, L.R.; Donoghue, J.P.; Friehs, G.M.; Black, M.J. Point-and-click cursor control with an intracortical neural interface system by humans with tetraplegia. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. Publ. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2011, 19, 193–203. [Google Scholar]
- Guenther, F.H.; Brumberg, J.S.; Wright, E.J.; Nieto-Castanon, A.; Tourville, J.A.; Panko, M.; Law, R.; Siebert, S.A.; Bartels, J.L.; Andreasen, D.S.; et al. A wireless brain-machine interface for real-time speech synthesis. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e8218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blakely, T.; Miller, K.J.; Zanos, S.P.; Rao, R.P.N.; Ojemann, J.G. Robust, long-term control of an electrocorticographic brain-computer interface with fixed parameters. Neurosurg. Focus. 2009, 27, E13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felton, E.A.; Wilson, J.A.; Williams, J.C.; Garell, P.C. Electrocorticographically controlled brain–computer interfaces using motor and sensory imagery in patients with temporary subdural electrode implants. J. Neurosurg. 2007, 106, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leuthardt, E.C.; Miller, K.J.; Schalk, G.; Rao, R.P.N.; Ojemann, J.G. Electrocorticography-based brain computer interface--the Seattle experience. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. Publ. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2006, 14, 194–198. [Google Scholar]
- Huggins, J.; Wren, P.; Gruis, K. What would brain-computer interface users want? Opinions and priorities of potential users with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. Off. Publ. World Fed. Neurol. Res. Group. Mot. Neuron Dis. 2011, 12, 318–324. [Google Scholar]
- Krusienski, D.J.; Shih, J.J. Control of a Visual Keyboard Using an Electrocorticographic Brain–Computer Interface. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair. 2011, 25, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limousin, P.; Foltynie, T. Long-term outcomes of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2019, 15, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, M.S.; Wu, S.L.; Webb, S.E.; Gluskin, K.; Yew, D. Functional magnetic resonance imaging and the brain: A brief review. World J. Radiol. 2017, 9, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitt, K.M.; Brumberg, J.S.; Burnison, J.D.; Mehta, J.; Kidwai, J. Behind the Scenes of Noninvasive Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Review of Electroencephalography Signals, How They Are Recorded, and Why They Matter. Perspect. ASHA Spec. Interest Groups 2019, 4, 1622–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mellinger, J.; Schalk, G.; Braun, C.; Preissl, H.; Rosenstiel, W.; Birbaumer, N.; Kübler, A. An MEG-based brain–computer interface (BCI). NeuroImage 2007, 36, 581–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Herff, C.; Krusienski, D.J.; Kubben, P. The Potential of Stereotactic-EEG for Brain-Computer Interfaces: Current Progress and Future Directions. Front. Neurosci. 2020, 14, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parvizi, J.; Kastner, S. Promises and limitations of human intracranial electroencephalography. Nat. Neurosci. 2018, 21, 474–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Penfield, W.; Boldrey, E. Somatic Motor and Sensory Representation in the Cerebral Cortex of Man as Studied by Electrical Stimulation. Brain 1937, 60, 389–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roux, F.; Niare, M.; Charni, S.; Giussani, C.; Durand, J. Functional architecture of the motor homunculus detected by electrostimulation. J. Physiol. 2020, 598, 5487–5504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carey, D.; Krishnan, S.; Callaghan, M.F.; Sereno, M.I.; Dick, F. Functional and Quantitative MRI Mapping of Somatomotor Representations of Human Supralaryngeal Vocal Tract. Cereb. Cortex 2017, 27, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eichert, N.; Papp, D.; Mars, R.B.; Watkins, K.E. Mapping Human Laryngeal Motor Cortex during Vocalization. Cereb. Cortex 2020, 30, 6254–6269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shih, J.; Krusienski, D.; Wolpaw, J. Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2012, 87, 268–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goss-Varley, M.; Dona, K.R.; McMahon, J.A.; Shoffstall, A.J.; Ereifej, E.S.; Lindner, S.C.; Capadona, J.R. Microelectrode implantation in motor cortex causes fine motor deficit: Implications on potential considerations to Brain Computer Interfacing and Human Augmentation. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 15254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sillay, K.A.; Rutecki, P.; Cicora, K.; Worrell, G.; Drazkowski, J.; Shih, J.J.; Sharan, A.D.; Morrell, M.J.; Williams, J.; Wingeier, B. Long-term measurement of impedance in chronically implanted depth and subdural electrodes during responsive neurostimulation in humans. Brain Stimul. 2013, 6, 718–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Swann, N.C.; de Hemptinne, C.; Miocinovic, S.; Qasim, S.; Ostrem, J.L.; Galifianakis, N.B.; Luciano, M.S.; Wang, S.S.; Ziman, N.; Taylor, R.; et al. Chronic multisite brain recordings from a totally implantable bidirectional neural interface: Experience in 5 patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurosurg. 2018, 128, 605–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pels, E.G.; Aarnoutse, E.J.; Leinders, S.; Freudenburg, Z.V.; Branco, M.P.; van der Vijgh, B.H.; Snijders, T.J.; Denison, T.; Vansteensel, M.J.; Ramsey, N.F. Stability of a chronic implanted brain-computer interface in late-stage amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Clin. Neurophysiol. Off. J. Int. Fed. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2019, 130, 1798–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szarowski, D.; Andersen, M.D.; Retterer, S.; Spence, A.; Isaacson, M.; Craighead, H.; Turner, J.; Shain, W. Brain responses to micro-machined silicon devices. Brain Res. 2003, 983, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seymour, J.P.; Kipke, D.R. Neural probe design for reduced tissue encapsulation in CNS. Biomaterials 2007, 28, 3594–3607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjornsson, C.S.; Oh, S.J.; Al-Kofahi, Y.A.; Lim, Y.J.; Smith, K.L.; Turner, J.N.; De, S.; Roysam, B.; Shain, W.; Kim, S.J. Effects of insertion conditions on tissue strain and vascular damage during neuroprosthetic device insertion. J. Neural Eng. 2006, 3, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.-T.; Hitchcock, R.W.; Bridge, M.J.; Tresco, P.A. Chronic response of adult rat brain tissue to implants anchored to the skull. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 2229–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharafkhani, N.; Kouzani, A.Z.; Adams, S.D.; Long, J.M.; Lissorgues, G.; Rousseau, L.; Orwa, J.O. Neural tissue-microelectrode interaction: Brain micromotion, electrical impedance, and flexible microelectrode insertion. J. Neurosci. Methods 2022, 365, 109388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, J.; Shain, W.; Szarowski, D.; Andersen, M.; Martins, S.; Isaacson, M.; Craighead, H. Cerebral astrocyte response to micromachined silicon implants. Exp. Neurol. 1999, 156, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wexler, A. The Social Context of “Do-It-Yourself” Brain Stimulation: Neurohackers, Biohackers, and Lifehackers. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Partridge, B.; Bell, S.; Lucke, J.; Hall, W. Australian university students’ attitudes towards the use of prescription stimulants as cognitive enhancers: Perceived patterns of use, efficacy and safety. Drug Alcohol. Rev. 2013, 32, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koike-Akino, T.; Mahajan, R.; Marks, T.K.; Wang, Y.; Watanabe, S.; Tuzel, O.; Orlik, P. High-accuracy user identification using EEG biometrics. In Proceedings of the 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Orlando, FL, USA, 16–20 August 2016; pp. 854–858. [Google Scholar]
- Clery, D. The privacy arms race. Could your pacemaker be hackable? Science 2015, 347, 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khera, M. Think Like a Hacker: Insights on the Latest Attack Vectors (and Security Controls) for Medical Device Applications. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2017, 11, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Title | Year Published | Country |
---|---|---|
Measuring instability in chronic human intracortical neural recordings towards stable, long-term brain-computer interfaces [10] | 2024 | USA |
An Accurate and Rapidly Calibrating Speech Neuroprosthesis [11] | 2024 | USA |
A bilingual speech neuroprosthesis driven by cortical articulatory representations shared between languages [12] | 2024 | USA |
Representation of internal speech by single neurons in human supramarginal gyrus [13] | 2024 | USA |
Online speech synthesis using a chronically implanted brain-computer interface in an individual with ALS [14] | 2024 | USA |
Machine learning decoding of single neurons in the thalamus for speech brain-machine interfaces [15] | 2024 | Israel |
Longevity of a Brain-Computer Interface for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis [16] | 2024 | The Netherlands |
Speech decoding from stereo-electroencephalography (sEEG) signals using advanced deep learning methods [17] | 2024 | UK |
Stable Decoding from a Speech BCI Enables Control for an Individual with ALS without Recalibration for 3 Months [18] | 2023 | USA |
Distributed feedforward and feedback cortical processing supports human speech production [19] | 2023 | USA |
A high-performance neuroprosthesis for speech decoding and avatar control [20] | 2023 | USA |
A high-performance speech neuroprosthesis [21] | 2023 | USA |
Direct speech reconstruction from sensorimotor brain activity with optimized deep learning models [22] | 2023 | The Netherlands |
Generalizable spelling using a speech neuroprosthesis in an individual with severe limb and vocal paralysis [23] | 2022 | USA |
Intracranial brain-computer interface spelling using localized visual motion response [24] | 2022 | China |
Decoding grasp and speech signals from the cortical grasp circuit in a tetraplegic human [25] | 2022 | USA |
Machine learning algorithm for decoding multiple subthalamic spike trains for speech brain-machine interfaces [26] | 2021 | Israel |
Real-time synthesis of imagined speech processes from minimally invasive recordings of neural activity [27] | 2021 | The Netherlands |
Generalizable cursor click decoding using grasp-related neural transients [28] | 2021 | USA |
Neuroprosthesis for Decoding Speech in a Paralyzed Person with Anarthria [29] | 2021 | USA |
Home Use of a Percutaneous Wireless Intracortical Brain-Computer Interface by Individuals With Tetraplegia [30] | 2021 | USA |
Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex-based control with an implanted brain-computer interface [31] | 2020 | The Netherlands |
Neural ensemble dynamics in dorsal motor cortex during speech in people with paralysis [32] | 2019 | USA |
Speech synthesis from neural decoding of spoken sentences [33] | 2019 | USA |
Cortical control of a tablet computer by people with paralysis [34] | 2018 | USA |
Stable long-term BCI-enabled communication in ALS and locked-in syndrome using LFP signals [35] | 2018 | USA |
High performance communication by people with paralysis using an intracortical brain-computer interface [36] | 2017 | USA |
Fully Implanted Brain-Computer Interface in a Locked-In Patient with ALS [37] | 2016 | The Netherlands |
Virtual typing by people with tetraplegia using a self-calibrating intracortical brain-computer interface [38] | 2015 | USA |
Decoding of articulatory gestures during word production using speech motor and premotor cortical activity [39] | 2015 | USA |
Neural Point-and-Click Communication by a Person With Incomplete Locked-In Syndrome [40] | 2015 | USA |
Real-time two-dimensional asynchronous control of a computer cursor with a single subdural electrode [41] | 2012 | Canada |
Neural control of cursor trajectory and click by a human with tetraplegia 1000 days after implant of an intracortical microelectrode array [42] | 2011 | USA |
Using the electrocorticographic speech network to control a brain-computer interface in humans [43] | 2011 | USA |
Control of a brain-computer interface using stereotactic depth electrodes in and adjacent to the hippocampus [44] | 2011 | USA |
Point-and-click cursor control with an intracortical neural interface system by humans with tetraplegia [45] | 2011 | USA |
Control of a visual keyboard using an electrocorticographic brain-computer interface [44] | 2011 | USA |
A wireless brain-machine interface for real-time speech synthesis [46] | 2009 | USA |
Robust, long-term control of an electrocorticographic brain-computer interface with fixed parameters [47] | 2009 | USA |
Electrocorticographically controlled brain-computer interfaces using motor and sensory imagery in patients with temporary subdural electrode implants. Report of four cases [48] | 2007 | USA |
Electrocorticography-based brain computer interface—the Seattle experience [49] | 2006 | USA |
Age and Gender | Injury | Number of Electrodes and Anatomical Placement | Electrode Details | Behaviour Task | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
37M [10] | C4 AIS-B spinal cord injury (SCI) | 1 × 96 channel in hand/arm knob of dominant (left) precentral gyrus | Not reported | Attempt hand/finger movement to move cursor | The novel decoder recalibration method quantifies and monitors instability in neural recording, suggesting when recalibration should take place. |
65M [10] | C4 AIS-C SCI | ||||
33M [13] | C5 spinal cord injury | 1 × 96 in left SMG 1 × 96 in left ventral premotor cortex 2 × 48 in left hand/arm of S1 | Platinum-tipped or sputtered iridium oxide film (SIROF)-tipped | Internally and externally vocalise words | The offline accuracy of recording from the SMG was 24% and 55% for each patient. This increased with an online internal speech task as users achieved 25% and 79% decoding accuracy. This suggests significant neural representation in internal and vocalised speech at the SMG. Additionally, activity in the somatosensory cortex (S1) was present during vocalised but not internalised speech, suggesting that no articulatory movement of the vocal tract occurred during internal speech. |
39M [13] | C6 spinal cord injury | 1 × 64 in left SMG, 1 × 64 in left ventral premotor cortex, 1 × 64 in primary motor cortex, 2 × 64 in left S1 | |||
Age not reported [25] | C5 cervical spinal cord injury | 1 × 96 in SMG, 1 × 96 in PMv, 2 × 48 in S1 | Iridium oxide | Motor imagery of grasps meaning he imagined making the hand shapes without actually moving | The patient, who was unable to physically move his hands due to tetraplegia, was asked to perform motor imagery of the grasps. The results showed that individual grasps could be decoded from the neural activity in all three brain regions, indicating their potential as target sites for grasp BMIs. They found that the SMG could also decode spoken grasp names, suggesting its potential role in speech BMIs. This contrasted with PMv and S1, which did not have a significant classification of speech for colours or grasp names. |
Age not reported [28] | C5 motor/C6 sensory ASIA B spinal cord injury | 2 × 88 in hand and arm areas of motor cortex | Not reported | Motor imagery using arm to move cursor and grasp to click | This study investigated the use of transient neural responses at the onset and offset of an attempted hand grasp to provide more generalizable click control for intracortical brain–computer interfaces. The researchers developed a novel, transient-based click decoder and compared its performance to the standard sustained click decoder. This research provides evidence that a transient-based approach to click decoding can significantly improve iBCI control by enabling both discrete and sustained click functionality. |
Age not reported [28] | C6 ASIA B spinal cord injury | 2 × 96 implanted in hand area of motor cortex | Not reported | ||
63M [30] | C4 AIS-C spinal cord injury | 2 × 96 implanted in left (dominant) precentral gyrus | Platinum tips | Point and click of commercial apps using cursor at home | The study found that the wireless system could effectively record and decode neural signals, allowing participants to control a computer cursor and a tablet computer. The performance of the wireless system was comparable to that of the wired system in terms of accuracy and speed. The successful implementation of the wireless system in a home setting marks a significant step towards developing more practical and user-friendly assistive technologies for people with severe motor impairments. |
35M [30] | C4 AIS-A SCI | Platinum tips | |||
64M [32] | C4 AIS-C SCI | 2 × 96 implanted in dorsal hand knob area of left (dominant) motor cortex | 1.5 mm electrode | Patient attempted speech and orofacial movement when prompted | The study shows the hand knob motor area of the motor cortex to also be responsible for speech production. Patient 1 had an accuracy of syllables of 84.6% and word decoding of 83.5%. Patient 2 had an accuracy of syllables of 54.7% and 61.5% of word decoding. |
56M [32] | C4 AIS-A SCI | 1.5 mm electrode | |||
63M [34] | C4 ASIA-C | 1 × 96 implanted in hand and arm area of dominant (left) motor cortex | 1 mm electrode | Motor imagery using hand/arm flexion to control cursor | The study looked at three patients including two ALS and one spinal cord injury patient using a point and click device on a commercial tablet. Patients were able to select 8.3–25.3 words per minute but also used other mediums such as email, chat, browsing the web, and accessing weather, news, music, and videos. |
63M [36] | C4 ASIA-C | 2 × 96 implanted into upper extremity area of dominant (left) motor cortex | 1.5 mm intracortical silicon microelectrode | Move cursor on screen to type | When free typing, one patient was able to achieve 24.4 ± 3.3 characters per minute. Two patients using Opti-II keyboard performed quicker than when using a qwerty keyboard. One patient performed quicker using an abcdef keyborard than when using opti-II, but the patient had minimal typing experience beforehand. |
Age and Gender | Extent of ALS | Number of Electrodes Anatomical Placement | Electrode Details | Behaviour Task | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
45M [11] | Tetraparesis + severe dyarthria ALS functional rating scale revised (ALSFRS-R) score is 23 | 256 electrodes in left precentral gyrus—patient was confirmed to be left hemisphere language-dominant by fMRI | 4 microelectrodes with each measuring 3.2 × 3.2 mm in size and electrode depth 1.5 mm | Attempt to speak | The BCI achieved an accuracy of 99.6% using a 50-word vocabulary. With training, the accuracy was 97.5% using a 125,000-word vocabulary. Arrays in the ventral premotor cortex and middle precentral gyrus contributed most to decoding accuracy. |
51F [34] | ALSFRS-R score is 14—retained speech and dexterous movement of wrist and some fingers | 96-channel electrodes in hand area of dominant (left) motor cortex | 1 mm electrode length, 4 × 4 mm | Motor imagery using hand/arm flexion to control cursor | The study looked at three patients using a point and click device on a commercial tablet. Patients were able to select 8.3–25.3 words per minute but also used other mediums such as email, chat, browsing the web, and accessing weather, news, music, and videos. |
51M [34] | ALSFRS-R score is 6—retained speech but minimal movement in hands/fingers | 2 × 96 electrodes in hand area of dominant (left) motor cortex | 1.5 mm electrode length | Motor imagery using hand/arm flexion to control cursor | |
Age not reported [35] | ALSFRS-R score is 16—had tracheostomy and on-demand ventilation. She could speak but had limited hand mobility | 96 channel electrode into arm area of dominant precentral gyrus | Not reported | Move cursor on screen | The study looked at intracortical local field potentials where the patient averaged one word per minute without the need for recalibration and sustained performance over several months. The study lasted for 138 days. Spelling rates of 6.88 correct characters/minute allowed the patient to also type messages and write emails. |
51F [36] | ALSFRS-R score is 16—retained dexterous movement of hand and wrist | 96 channel electrode into hand area of dominant (left) motor cortex | 1.0 mm silicon electrode | Move cursor on screen to type | When free typing, the patient was able to achieve 24.4 ± 3.3 characters per minute using an Opti-II keyboard. This was 1.3 times quicker than when using a QWERTY keyboard. |
54M [36] | ALSFRS-R score is 17—very limited movement in fingers | 96 channel electrode implanted into hand area of dominant (left) motor cortex | 1.5 mm silicon electrode | Move cursor on screen to type | The patient performed quicker using an ABCDEF keyboard than when using a QWERTY keyboard. However, the patient also had limited typing experience beforehand. |
51F [38] | Not reported | 96 channel electrode implanted into hand/arm knob area of dominant motor cortex | 1.0 mm electrodes | Selecting character on screen | The auto-calibration of the decoder using a retrospective decoder produced comparable accuracy (12 characters correct per minute) as a standard decoder (11.4 correct characters/minute). Even with longer trials involving self-typing sessions, i.e., 1–2+ h, typing rates remained high. |
58M [38] | Not reported | 1.5 mm electrode | |||
37M [45] | Paralysis | 96 channel electrode implanted into arm area of dominant motor cortex | Not reported | Move cursor by imaging being able to control the cursor and click by imaging right hand opening | In total, 52.6% of targets were selected correctly but failed only due to time-out. The false-click average was one per trial. |
67F [21] | Patient has bulbar onset ALS. Whilst she retains some limited orofacial movement and can vocalise, she has an inability to produce intelligible speech | 2 × 64 channel electrode implanted ventral premotor cortex (area 6v) and 2 × 64 channel electrodes in area 44 | 3.2 mm arrays | Attempt at speech | The patient was able to communicate at a rate of 62 words per minute, which was significantly higher than previous approaches. She had a 23.8% error rate on a vocabulary consisting of 125,000 words. |
Age and Gender | Stroke Pathology | Number of Electrodes Anatomical Placement | Electrode Details | Behaviour Task | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age not reported [35] | Brainstem stroke leading to locked-in syndrome | 96-channel electrode into arm area of dominant precentral gyrus | Not reported | Moving cursor on screen | The study looked at intracortical local field potentials where the patient averaged one word per minute without the need for recalibration, and sustained performance over several months. Study lasted for 76 days. Spelling rates of 3.07 correct characters/minute allowed patient to also type messages and write emails. |
57F [38] | Not reported | 1.5 mm electrode tips | Selecting character on screen | The auto-calibration of the decoder using a retrospective decoder produced comparable accuracy (12 characters correct per minute) as a standard decoder (11.4 correct characters/minute). | |
66M [38] | Not reported | 1.5 mm electrode tips | |||
58F [40] | Bilateral pontine infarction | 96-channel implanted in the arm/hand area of her motor cortex | Not reported | Moving cursor on screen by attempting to move dominant hand at wrist | Using a radial keyboard led to an improvement of 65% in correct characters selected per minute and outperformed the QWERTY keyboard in all tasks. The patient was also able to use the keyboard to enter google chat and communicate at a rate of 8.1 correct characters per minute |
56F [42] | Brainstem stroke leading to anarthria and tetraplegia | 96-channel implanted in arm area of motor cortex | Not reported | Moving cursor on screen by attempting to move dominant right hand and right hand grasp to select | After 1000 days post implantation, the BCI was still working well. The patient was able to successfully select 2.7–8.6 correct selections/minute on a screen at a success rate of 91.9–94.9% over 5 days. |
26M [46] | Brainstem stroke leading to locked-in syndrome | Neurotrophic electrode implanted into precentral gyrus | Single 3-wire electrode | Attempted speech patterns were wirelessly transmitted and converted in real time using a Kalman filter-decoder | The participant significantly improved their performance of a vowel production task over a 1.5 h period involving 34 or fewer vowels, increasing the average accuracy from 45% to 70%. |
55F [45] | Brainstem stroke leading to tetraplegia | 96-channel electrode implanted into arm area of dominant motor cortex | Not reported | Moving cursor by imaging being able to control the cursor and click by imaging right hand closing | In total, 97.4% of the targets were selected correctly but failed only due to time-out. The false-click average was 0.74 per trial. It took the patient 7.2 ± 3.8 s seconds to move the cursor over a distance of 12 cm. |
Age and Gender | Pathology | Number of Electrodes Anatomical Placement | Behaviour Task | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|
60M [14] | ALS: ALSFRS-R score of 26: Patient had primarily disability of bulbar and upper extremity muscle, resulting in mostly unintelligible speech | Two 8 × 8 subdural electrodes covering ventral sensorimotor cortex and representative dorsal laryngeal area using platinum–iridium disc electrodes covering 36.6 mm × 33.1 mm | Patient was tasked with reading aloud words in a closed vocabulary of 6 words | Using a recurrent neural network, the BCI was able to produce acoustic speech that included the characteristics and natural pacing of the patient’s speech. Native English speakers could interpret the attempted words with 80% accuracy from the synthesised speech. |
35F [48] | Epilepsy with right anterior temporal lobe lesion | Subdural in right temporal lobe | Motor imagery to move cursor on screen | Cursor control can be achieved with minimal training. In this study, participants trained for 45 min in a day for a total of 2–7 days. |
43M [48] | Epilepsy with left temporal lobe tumour | Subdural in left temporal lobe | ||
18F [48] | Epilepsy with left temporal lobe mass | Left perisylvian region | ||
60F [48] | Medically intractable facial pain | Right primary motor cortex | ||
58F [16] | ALS: ALSFRS-R score of 1 | 2 electrode strips over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and 2 over the sensorimotor cortex | Control of a cursor on a monitor and clicking | This was an update on a previous study where the patient had used the BCI to communicate with family and caregivers. This included calling for medication or requesting airway suction. After approximately 6 years of use, the signals’ quality started to decrease, coinciding with atrophy in frontal and parietal brain volume, leading to increased distance between strips (that were attached to the skull) and cortex. |
61M [18] | ALS patient with bulbar dysfunction, leading to severe progressive dysarthria and dyspnoea | 2 × 64 channel subdural with each strip covering a surface area of 36.66 mm × 33.1 mm over the ventral sensorimotor cortex | Patient read single text commands aloud or mimed them as they appeared on a computer monitor | Speech was accurately decoded with a median accuracy of 90.59% over a 3 month period without the need for recalibration. No adverse effects were also observed from implantation throughout the 3-month period. |
36M [12] | Bilateral pontine stroke: patient was left with severe spastic quadriparesis and anarthria | hdECoG array implanted subdurally using a total of 128 electrodes and was centred to sample from dorsal posterior aspect of inferior frontal gyrus, posterior aspect of middle frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus, and anterior aspect of postcentral gyrus | Patient attempted to speak words throughout the tasks | The decoding of bilingual speech led to a median word error rate of 25.0% across online testing blocks for both English and Spanish phrases, demonstrating the system’s ability to decode intended speech in both languages. The system could freely decode the intended language with a median accuracy of 87.5% based on neural features and the differential linguistic context built throughout a phrase. A comparison between the speed of this BCI and the participant’s previous communication method, an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interface that used residual head movements to spell words, was also made. The BCI achieved a median speed of 21 words per minute, which was considerably faster than the participant’s AAC rate of 3 words per minute |
47F [20] | Pontine infarction with left vertebral artery dissection and basilar artery occlusion—patient is unable to articulate intelligible words | hdECoG array with 253 electrodes implanted to cover regions associated with speech and language including left middle aspect of the superior and middle temporal gyri, the precentral gyrus and the postcentral gyrus | Activation of neurons was recorded with attempts to silently voice words from 249 randomly selected words by moving orofacial muscles including that of the tongue, lips, and jaw. | The study involved multiple stages of recording signals for word production. The system decodes the neural signals and displays the intended words as text on a screen. Speech Audio: The system synthesises audible speech from the participant’s brain activity. Facial Avatar Animation: The system animates a virtual avatar to accompany the synthesised speech, creating a more embodied communication experience. The avatar can display both speech-related and non-speech facial gestures, including emotional expressions. |
36M [23] | Extensive pontine infarct leading to severe spastic quadriparesis and anarthria | hdECoG with 128 electrodes covering the left hemisphere associated with speech production. This includes the posterior aspect of the middle frontal gyrus, the precentral gyrus, and the anterior aspect of the postcentral gyrus, as well as the dorsal posterior aspect of the inferior frontal gyrus. | Patient attempted to start speaking | The primary goal was to assess if the participant could use silent attempts to speak to control the BCI and spell out intended messages from a 1152-word vocabulary. The system achieved a median character error rate of 6.13% and a median word error rate of 10.53% during the copy-typing task. The median spelling rate was 29.4 characters per minute and 6.9 words per minute, exceeding the participant’s typing speed with his existing assistive device. Silent Control: This study is the first to demonstrate successful sentence decoding from silent speech attempts, paving the way for communication restoration in individuals with complete vocal tract paralysis. |
36M [29] | Pontine stroke associated with dissection of right vertebral artery | 128 electrodes placed in subdural space over left sensorimotor cortex including left precentral gyrus, postcentral gyrus, posterior middle frontal gyrus, and posterior inferior frontal gyrus | Attempted speech production | The BCI system successfully decoded full sentences from the participant’s cortical activity in real time. The median rate of decoding was 15.2 words per minute, with a median word error rate of 25.6%. |
58F [43] | ALS patient with ALSFRS-R score of 2 | Subdural placement in left prefrontal cortex and left sensorimotor cortex | Cursor movement | The study demonstrated the use of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) as an anatomical target to control a cursor in a one-dimensional BCI task. This task involved moving a cursor up or down by either performing serial subtraction or resting. |
39F [43] | Pontine stroke leading to tetraplegia | |||
58F [37] | ALS patient with ALSFRS-R score of 2 | Subdural electrodes placed over the hand region of the left motor cortex, and left prefrontal region | Cursor movement | The study looked at communication for an ALS patient with LIS. The patient used the BCI for 262 days. The patient was able to achieve an accuracy of 89 ± 6% of the time, with the subjective mental effort required decreasing from an initial 5 to 2.8 out of 5. |
36F, 49M, 45F, 48F [31] | Epilepsy | Subdural positioned strip consisting of 64 (8 × 8) electrodes positioned on left lateral surface | Patients controlled a cursor by expressing a series of phonemes | Regions coding for phonemes included Wernicke’s area (BA 40), the auditory cortex (BA 42 and BA 22), premotor cortex (BA 6), and sensorimotor cortex (BA 3). All patients achieved accuracy greater than 69% after 4 to 15 min of closed-loop control experiments when deciphering phonemes. |
Surgical Considerations | Ethical Considerations |
---|---|
Infection Bleeding Iatrogenic damage Inflammation Anaesthetic complications Postoperative pain Lengthy rehabilitation | Legal justice: Regulatory agencies control the introduction of neurotechnologies into trials and clinical practice. Once on the market, continuous safety monitoring as well as ethical issues arising on cases of malpractice, hacking, and the mis-use of data will remain a subject of concern. Distributive justice: Neurotechnologies that are used for enhancement purposes may create a societal divide where select individuals are able to achieve improved characteristics such as strength, cognition, or connection to external devices. Autonomy: The stimulation of cortical tissue can lead to changes in thought patterns, and as such, there is plausibility for altered decision making under the influence of neurotechnologies. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Khan, S.; Kallis, L.; Mee, H.; El Hadwe, S.; Barone, D.; Hutchinson, P.; Kolias, A. Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review. Brain Sci. 2025, 15, 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15040336
Khan S, Kallis L, Mee H, El Hadwe S, Barone D, Hutchinson P, Kolias A. Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review. Brain Sciences. 2025; 15(4):336. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15040336
Chicago/Turabian StyleKhan, Shujhat, Leonie Kallis, Harry Mee, Salim El Hadwe, Damiano Barone, Peter Hutchinson, and Angelos Kolias. 2025. "Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review" Brain Sciences 15, no. 4: 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15040336
APA StyleKhan, S., Kallis, L., Mee, H., El Hadwe, S., Barone, D., Hutchinson, P., & Kolias, A. (2025). Invasive Brain–Computer Interface for Communication: A Scoping Review. Brain Sciences, 15(4), 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15040336