Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Sub-Scalp EEG for Sensorimotor Brain-Computer Interface

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Electrodes placed under the scalp capture distinct sensorimotor brain signals at 5 mm spacing and decode motor execution above chance in sheep, approaching the signal quality of electrocorticography and endovascular arrays.

desk verdict Genuine first data, but the motor-decoding result is likely carried by muscle artifact, and the spatial-resolution claim rests on a confounded electrode-size comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03423 v1 pith:AO4UFFYN submitted 2025-06-03 eess.SP q-bio.NC

Timothy B Mahoney , David B Grayden , Sam E John This is my paper
classification eess.SPq-bio.NC
keywords sub-scalpEEGbrain-computerinterfacesensorimotorrhythmssomatosensoryevokedpotentialsspatialresolutionmotordecodingsheepmodelminimallyinvasiveneuralrecording
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper makes the case that sub-scalp EEG is a viable chronic brain-computer interface signal source, not just a seizure-monitoring device. In sheep, it recorded somatosensory evoked potentials with channel-to-channel signal-to-noise and phase variations at 5 mm electrode spacing, which the authors read as evidence that the array is not spatially oversampling and can isolate nearby cortical sources. In a separate behavioural experiment, the same modality classified motor execution above chance in a majority of animals, matching the performance of a comparable endovascular electrode study. If these results hold, sub-scalp arrays could offer much of the spatial and spectral advantage of more invasive implants while remaining removable, non-vascular, and free of daily scalp-electrode setup.

What carries the argument

The central objects are custom flexible polyimide electrode arrays placed on the skull beneath the periosteum, with electrode diameters of 1, 3, and 5 mm and pitches of 5 or 10 mm. The spatial-resolution argument is carried by three quantitative observables on somatosensory evoked potentials: single-trial signal-to-noise ratio, variance of SNR across channels, and pairwise cross-correlation with lag between channels. Phase reversals between adjacent channel groups are the evidence that separate electrodes see the same source with opposite polarity, which is the signature of spatial resolution. For motor decoding, the mechanism is a pipeline of continuous wavelet transform spectrograms, mutual-information feature selection over temporal, spectral, and spatial features, and linear discriminant analysis, all run per animal to avoid cross-subject feature interference.

What would settle it

Co-register each sub-scalp electrode's position to CT or MRI and compare channel-by-channel SEP signal-to-noise and phase to local skull thickness, electrode-bone contact, and the known somatosensory cortex location: if the observed spatial variation is explained by skull thickness or contact quality rather than by the geometry of the cortical source, the 5 mm spatial-resolution claim is not supported. A complementary check is to record the same SEP with a 2.5 mm pitch array and test whether adjacent channels add independent information beyond what 5 mm spacing already gives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that electrodes sitting in the sub-scalp space, directly on the outer surface of the skull, capture sensorimotor brain signals with enough spatial resolution to distinguish adjacent neural populations, and enough fidelity to decode movement. Somatosensory evoked potential recordings showed that 1 mm and 3 mm diameter electrodes at 5 mm pitch record SEP signal-to-noise ratios near 5 dB, comparable to epidural electrocorticography and endovascular arrays measured in earlier sheep studies, while 5 mm diameter electrodes performed markedly worse. Adjacent channels formed clusters of high positive or negative correlation with phase reversals between them, interpreted as recording the same cortical source from opposite sides of a sulcus. Motor execution was decoded above chance in two of four sheep for left versus right movement and three of four sheep for movement versus rest, with test-set accuracies up to 66 percent. The authors conclude that 5 mm inter-channel distance is not spatial oversampling and that sub-scalp EEG warrants investigation as a chronic brain-computer interface modality.

Load-bearing premise

The arrays were placed over what prior mapping studies identified as ovine sensorimotor cortex, but the exact position of brain structures under the electrodes was never verified; if skull thickness, tissue contact, or electrode placement, rather than cortical source geometry, explains the channel-to-channel differences, the spatial-resolution conclusion collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sub-scalp brain-computer interface arrays with electrode diameters of 1 to 3 mm and 5 mm pitch can be designed for chronic sensorimotor decoding, rather than the low-channel-count seizure-monitoring layouts used today.
  • Motor decoding performance similar to that of endovascular stent-electrode arrays supports pursuing sub-scalp EEG as a removable, non-vascular alternative for in-home brain-computer interface users.
  • Detection of motor-related high-gamma features from sub-scalp electrodes indicates the modality can carry higher-bandwidth information than typical scalp EEG, though with lower power than electrocorticography.
  • The finding that 5 mm diameter electrodes lose signal-to-noise ratio after common average referencing suggests smaller electrodes are preferable for dense sub-scalp arrays.
  • Because classification remained above chance in noisy, unrestrained conditions, sub-scalp brain-computer interfaces may be robust outside shielded laboratory environments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 5 mm spacing result transfers to human skull anatomy, sub-scalp arrays could occupy a resolution niche between scalp EEG and electrocorticography; but sheep and human skull thickness and gyral patterns differ, so the transfer is not automatic.
  • Phase-reversal patterns across adjacent sub-scalp channels could be exploited as an intraoperative or post-implantation localization tool to verify electrode placement over a target sulcus.
  • The prominence of high-gamma features in feature selection suggests that closed-loop sub-scalp brain-computer interface designs should allocate decoding weight to high-gamma power, a band usually ignored by conventional EEG-based interfaces.
  • A direct testable extension is a human study comparing sub-scalp and scalp EEG with identical electrode counts to quantify how much spatial information the scalp and skull actually remove.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports two ovine experiments intended to establish sub-scalp EEG as a viable chronic BCI signal source. Aim 1 records somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) with three custom sub-scalp arrays differing in electrode diameter and pitch, and interprets differences in SNR and inter-channel correlation as evidence that 5 mm inter-electrode spacing is not spatially oversampling. Aim 2 classifies left/right motor execution and left/right/rest from sub-scalp EEG recorded during a forced-choice behavioral task, reporting above-chance accuracy in some animals and claiming comparability to prior endovascular and ECoG work. The authors provide detailed methods, openly available raw data, and explicitly acknowledge several limitations, including unverified electrode location relative to cortical structures.

Significance. If the findings were secure, the paper would make a useful contribution by providing the first systematic characterization of sub-scalp EEG spatial resolution for sensorimotor BCI and by demonstrating motor decoding from a minimally invasive, removable chronic recording platform. The manuscript is commendable for publishing raw data, for using multiple array geometries, and for comparing results with published endovascular and ECoG benchmarks. However, the two central claims are each weakened by load-bearing methodological issues: the electrode-size comparison in Aim 1 is confounded with inter-electrode pitch, and the Aim 2 classification results are not separated from movement-related muscle artifact. The comparative claims to endovascular arrays therefore need substantial additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1.2, §3.1.1, §4.1.1] The comparison of electrode diameters is confounded with inter-electrode pitch. The 5 mm diameter electrodes appear only on the 3x3 array with 10 mm pitch, while the 1 mm and 3 mm diameter electrodes are both on 5x5 arrays with 5 mm pitch (Figure 2b-d). The SNR differences reported in Figure 6b and interpreted in Section 4.1.1 as due to electrode size could therefore be driven by the difference in pitch, channel density, or array footprint rather than by electrode diameter. To support the claim that 1 mm and 3 mm electrodes record higher SNR than 5 mm electrodes, the authors would need either an array that varies electrode diameter at a fixed pitch or an analysis that controls for pitch; as it stands, the design does not isolate electrode size.
  2. [§3.1.2, §4.1.2, §4.1.3] The central spatial-resolution claim is not supported because the spatial variation in SNR and correlation is not anchored to verified anatomical locations. Section 4.1.2 states that "the precise location of such structures relative to the arrays was not verified," and the array placement is described as based on skull landmarks from earlier mapping studies (Section 2.2.2). If the observed channel-to-channel differences reflect variable electrode-tissue coupling, local skull thickness, or slight array misplacement rather than the geometry of somatosensory cortical sources, the conclusion that "5 mm inter-channel distance is not spatially oversampling" (Section 4.1.3) collapses. A concrete test would be to co-register electrode positions with post-mortem imaging or histology, or to compare the observed SEP phase patterns against a dipole model with known source location.
  3. [§2.2.5, §3.3, §4.2, §4.2.1] The Aim 2 motor-decoding results are potentially confounded by muscle artifact. The epochs span 200 ms before to 500 ms after head-movement onset, and Section 3.3 reports that classification was not above chance when temporal features were limited to the pre-movement window, so all discriminative information comes from the movement-execution interval. Preprocessing is only a 2-200 Hz bandpass filter and common average referencing; no EMG monitoring, artifact rejection, or muscle-activity surrogate is described. The finding in Section 4.2.1 that high-gamma (70-200 Hz) features most often carried the highest mutual information is particularly concerning because this band overlaps the EMG spectrum and sub-scalp electrodes are close to the temporalis and cervical muscles (a point the authors themselves note in the Introduction, citing refs [19,29-31]). The above-chance classification results and their comparison to endovascular arrays [48] are therefore not yet secured. The authors should provide artifact-control analyses, such as classification using only pre-movement or low-frequency features, EMG recordings, movement kinematics as a confound regressor, or a spectral-slope/EMG-band exclusion test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1.1] The word "cortix" should be "cortex" in the sentence describing the separation of the periosteum.
  2. [§2.2.3] The word "portible" should be "portable" in the description of the amplifier hardware.
  3. [§4.1.1] In the paragraph on SNR variance, the sentence "SNR also showed higher variance between channels with the 1 mm and 5 mm arrays (3.1±3.0 µV2 and 2.7±2.6 µV2, respectively) than the 5 mm arrays (0.4±0.3 µV2)" is internally inconsistent; the first mention of "5 mm" appears to be a typo for "3 mm". The text should be corrected to match the array labels used elsewhere.
  4. [§4.2.1] The statement that this is "the first demonstration of detection of high gamma features associated with motor function with sub-scalp EEG" should be qualified, because the high-gamma features may reflect EMG contamination and because the comparison to prior work is limited by differences in species, task, and recording hardware.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; central results are direct empirical measurements and held-out classification, with same-group citations used only as external benchmarks.

full rationale

The central results are direct empirical measurements rather than derived quantities. Aim 1 compares SEP SNR and inter-channel correlation across three array geometries; the conclusion that 5 mm pitch is not spatially oversampling is an inductive interpretation of measured channel differences, not a quantity fitted from those differences. Aim 2 uses chronological holdout test sets and feature selection nested inside five-fold cross-validation; accuracy is computed on epochs not used to train the classifier, so the above-chance claim is not forced by construction. The pre-movement control in Section 3.3 is an additional check, not a circular reuse of the result. The comparisons to ECoG and endovascular benchmarks cite John et al. [44], Forsyth et al. [48], and Mahoney et al. [33]; these are same-group publications, but they are separate published datasets used as yardsticks, not fitted constants or outputs of this paper's pipeline, so they do not create a circular chain. Section 4.1.2's admission that 'the precise location of such structures relative to the arrays was not verified' weakens the spatial-resolution inference but does not make it definitionally circular; likewise, the lack of EMG artifact control in the behavioural experiment (Section 2.2.5) is a confounding-variable concern, not a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. No equation or claim in the paper reduces by construction to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All claims are built on new measurements rather than on fitted models or derived equations, so the ledger contains no invented entities and no fitted parameters in the model sense. The listed free parameters are hand-set analysis choices that shape the reported SNR and accuracy values. The main axioms are anatomical localization of the array, attribution of signal variation to cortical sources, absence of dominating muscle/movement artifact, and extrapolation from sheep to humans. The statistical methods are standard.

free parameters (5)
  • Trial rejection threshold = 80th percentile of per-trial standard deviation
    Set in Section 2.1.4(iii); trials above this threshold were discarded, which can bias SNR estimates toward clean trials.
  • SNR analysis window = 10-70 ms before and after stimulus
    Defined in Section 2.1.5; the choice of pre- and post-stimulus windows determines all reported SNR values.
  • Cross-correlation lag window = ±5 ms
    Defined in Section 2.1.6; only correlations within this lag are counted, affecting the functional-group interpretation.
  • Number of selected features = 15 per animal and classification case
    Chosen in Section 2.2.5; classification accuracy depends on this hand-set parameter.
  • Stimulus current threshold = per-session visual determination
    Selected in Section 2.1.4(vi) as the lowest current producing a visible SEP; this is an experimenter judgment.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The electrode array was positioned over the ovine sensorimotor cortex using landmarks from prior mapping studies.
    Used in Section 2.1.1 and Figure 5d; Section 4.1.2 states the precise location was not verified. If misplaced, SEP spatial variation cannot be attributed to cortical sources.
  • domain assumption Differences in SEP SNR and inter-channel correlation reflect underlying cortical geometry rather than electrode contact, skull thickness, or vasculature.
    Invoked in Sections 4.1.1-4.1.2 without direct verification of electrode-tissue coupling or anatomical ground truth.
  • domain assumption Motor-related features are neural and not dominated by EMG or movement artifacts.
    Implicit in Aim 2 (Sections 2.2.4-2.2.5); no artifact control is included, and the cited literature notes that sub-scalp EEG can carry EMG artifact from nearby muscles.
  • domain assumption Sheep sensorimotor physiology is sufficiently representative of humans to support BCI feasibility extrapolation.
    The authors identify sheep anatomical differences as the major limitation in Section 4.3; the feasibility claim for human BCI relies on this assumption.
  • standard math Standard statistical tests are valid at the sample sizes used for per-session and per-sheep analyses.
    Student's t tests, one-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD, and binomial tests are used across Sections 3.1 and 3.3 without adjustment for multiple comparisons across animals and sessions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sub-Scalp EEG for Sensorimotor Brain-Computer Interface." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AO4UFFYN

@misc{pith2026250603423,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sub-Scalp EEG for Sensorimotor Brain-Computer Interface},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AO4UFFYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03423}
}
read the original abstract

Objective: To establish sub-scalp electroencephalography (EEG) as a viable option for brain-computer interface (BCI) applications, particularly for chronic use, by demonstrating its effectiveness in recording and classifying sensorimotor neural activity. Approach: Two experiments were conducted in this study. The first aim was to demonstrate the high spatial resolution of sub-scalp EEG through analysis of somatosensory evoked potentials in sheep models. The second focused on the practical application of sub-scalp EEG, classifying motor execution using data collected during a sheep behavioural experiment. Main Results: We successfully demonstrated the recording of sensorimotor rhythms using sub-scalp EEG in sheep models. Important spatial, temporal, and spectral features of these signals were identified, and we were able to classify motor execution with above-chance performance. These results are comparable to previous work that investigated signal quality and motor execution classification using ECoG and endovascular arrays in sheep models. Significance: These results suggest that sub-scalp EEG may provide signal quality that approaches that of more invasive neural recording methods such as ECoG and endovascular arrays, and support the use of sub-scalp EEG for chronic BCI applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03423 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Outcomes of prior studies investigating optimal inter-electrode distances of neural recording methods: scalp EEG, ECoG (ED=epidural, SD=subdural), and endovascular (EV). (Created using biorender.com) for sensorimotor BCI applications. These are: Aim 1: Investigate the spatial resolution of sub-scalp EEG somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP). Aim 2: Demonstrate sensorimotor activity decoding with sub-scalp EEG. We pe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Electrode arrays and testing procedure. (a) The electrode array used for subcutaneous stimulation to the forelimb. The (b) large (5 mm), (c) medium (3 mm), and (d) small (1 mm) custom sub-scalp arrays. The reference and ground electrodes can be seen through the substrate on the back of the arrays. These figures are the same scale. (e) A breakdown of the stimulus experiment session. Stimulus pulses were applied once … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Electrode array and location. (a) The electrode array (AirRay, Cortec, Germany) encased in silicone (M4670, Barnes Products Pty Ltd, Australia) with anchorage points for suturing at each corner. The wires were encased within an intravenous tubing set flooded with silicone (Permatex Canada Inc., Canada). Channels are indicated by the blue circles and reference/ground by the red circle. (b) An x-ray image of the sheep… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The animals were housed in individual cages. In front of each animal were [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The behavioural experiment progression during a single trial where the animal either successfully completes the task and is presented with a tone indicating success and a reward (3a and 4a), or fails (3b and 4b) and receives a tone indicating failure and no reward (cre…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SEP Responses. Exemplar single trial SEP recordings from the (a) 1 mm, (b) 3 mm, and (c) 5 mm arrays in the same animal. The average over trials is shown in bold. The dashed line indicates the time of stimulus. These figures share the same voltage scale. (d) Examples o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The median SEP SNR for each channel across sessions and arrays. Each marker is the median SEP SNR across trials for a single channel. S1 to S8 are the different sessions. (b) The two channels with highest SNR grouped across sessions for each array. Each marker type…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pairwise channel correlation maps and histograms. (a) Phase variation across channels from one session (S2, 1 mm array). The traces on the left are the average-over￾trial SEPs. The dashed line indicates the time of stimulus. The orange line illustrates the change in SE…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The averaged-over-trials traces for (a) left and (b) right movements in sheep 1. These traces were lowpass filtered with a cutoff of 30 Hz to help visualise the event related potentials. The dashed lines indicate the time of movement onset. The averaged-over-trials spe…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Confusion matrices for each classification case. The matrices with a bold outline indicate cases that resulted in above chance classification accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    Forsyth, Megan Dunston, Gabriel Lombardi, Gil S

    Ian A. Forsyth, Megan Dunston, Gabriel Lombardi, Gil S. Rind, Stephen Ronayne, Yan T. Wong, Clive N May, David B. Grayden, Thomas Oxley, Nicholas Opie, and Sam E. John. Evaluation of a minimally invasive endovascular neural interface for decoding motor activity. In 2019 9th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER) , pages 750–753, 20...

    work page arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    Acute Onset Quadriplegia and Stroke: Look at the Brainstem, Look at the Midline

    Marialuisa Zedde, Ilaria Grisendi, Francesca Romana Pezzella, Manuela Napoli, Claudio Moratti, Franco Valzania, and Rosario Pascarella. Acute Onset Quadriplegia and Stroke: Look at the Brainstem, Look at the Midline. Journal of Clinical Medicine , 11(23):7205, December 2022. ISSN 2077-0383. doi: 10.3390/jcm11237205. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/23/7205

    work page doi:10.3390/jcm11237205 2022

  3. [2]

    Vollmer, and Werner Hacke

    Roman Haberl, Dennis G. Vollmer, and Werner Hacke. Tetraplegia and Paraplegia. In Werner Hacke, Daniel F. Hanley, Karl M. Einh¨ aupl, Thomas P. REFERENCES 31 Bleck, Michael N. Diringer, and Allan H. Ropper, editors, Neurocritical Care, pages 292–306. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1994. ISBN 978-3-642-87604-2 978-3-642-87602-8. doi: 10.10...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-87602-8 1994

  4. [3]

    Eye-gaze control of a wheelchair mounted 6DOF assistive robot for activities of daily living

    Md Samiul Haque Sunny, Md Ishrak Islam Zarif, Ivan Rulik, Javier Sanjuan, Mohammad Habibur Rahman, Sheikh Iqbal Ahamed, Inga Wang, Katie Schultz, and Brahim Brahmi. Eye-gaze control of a wheelchair mounted 6DOF assistive robot for activities of daily living. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation , 18(1):173, December 2021. ISSN 1743-0003. doi: 10...

    work page doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00969-2 2021

  5. [4]

    A Human–Machine Interface Based on Eye Tracking for Controlling and Monitoring a Smart Home Using the Internet of Things

    Alexandre Bissoli, Daniel Lavino-Junior, Mariana Sime, Lucas Encarna¸ c˜ ao, and Teodiano Bastos-Filho. A Human–Machine Interface Based on Eye Tracking for Controlling and Monitoring a Smart Home Using the Internet of Things. Sensors, 19(4):859, February 2019. ISSN 1424-8220. doi: 10.3390/s19040859. URL http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/4/859

    work page doi:10.3390/s19040859 2019

  6. [5]

    K¨ ubler, F

    A. K¨ ubler, F. Nijboer, J. Mellinger, T. M. Vaughan, H. Pawelzik, G. Schalk, D. J. McFarland, N. Birbaumer, and J. R. Wolpaw. Patients with ALS can use sensorimotor rhythms to operate a brain-computer interface. Neurology, 64 (10):1775–7, 2005. ISSN 0028-3878. doi: 10.1212/01.Wnl.0000158616.43002.6d. Type: Journal Article

    work page arXiv 2005

  7. [6]

    Brain–Computer Interfaces Using Sensorimotor Rhythms: Current State and Future Perspectives

    Han Yuan and Bin He. Brain–Computer Interfaces Using Sensorimotor Rhythms: Current State and Future Perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 61(5):1425–1435, May 2014. ISSN 0018-9294, 1558-

    2014

  8. [7]

    Heckman, Jane E

    Betts Peters, Gregory Bieker, Susan M. Heckman, Jane E. Huggins, Catherine Wolf, Debra Zeitlin, and Melanie Fried-Oken. Brain-Computer Interface Users Speak Up: The Virtual Users’ Forum at the 2013 International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , 96(3, Supplement):S33–S37, 2015. ISSN 0003-9993. doi: 10.101...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.03.037 2013

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    Blabe, Vikash Gilja, Cindy A

    Christine H. Blabe, Vikash Gilja, Cindy A. Chestek, Krishna V. Shenoy, Kim D. Anderson, and Jaimie M. Henderson. Assessment of brain-machine interfaces REFERENCES 32 from the perspective of people with paralysis. Journal of Neural Engineering , 12(4):043002, 2015. ISSN 1741-25...

    2015 doi

  2. [9]

    Kubler, E

    A. Kubler, E. M. Holz, A. Riccio, C. Zickler, T. Kaufmann, S. C. Kleih, P. Staiger-Salzer, L. Desideri, E. J. Hoogerwerf, and D. Mattia. The user- centered design as novel perspective for evaluating the usability of BCI- controlled applications. PLoS One , 9(12):e112392, 2014....

    2014 doi

  3. [10]

    Daly, Elaine Armstrong, Suzanne Martin, and Andrea K¨ ubler

    Ivo K¨ athner, Sebastian Halder, Christoph Hinterm¨ uller, Arnau Espinosa, Christoph Guger, Felip Miralles, Eloisa Vargiu, Stefan Dauwalder, Xavier Rafael-Palou, Marc Sol` a, Jean M. Daly, Elaine Armstrong, Suzanne Martin, and Andrea K¨ ubler. A Multifunctional Brain-Computer ...

    2017

  4. [11]

    Ana S. S. Cardoso, Lotte N. S. Andreasen Struijk, Rasmus L. Kaeseler, and Mads Jochumsen. Comparing the Usability of Alternative EEG Devices to Traditional Electrode Caps for SSVEP-BCI Controlled Assistive Robots. In 2022 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (IC...

    2022

  5. [12]

    Brain–computer interfaces patient preferences: a systematic review

    Jamie F M Brannigan, Kishan Liyanage, Hugo Layard Horsfall, Luke Bashford, William Muirhead, and Adam Fry. Brain–computer interfaces patient preferences: a systematic review. Journal of Neural Engineering , 21(6):061005, December 2024. ISSN 1741-2560, 1741-2552. doi: 10.1088/1...

    2024 doi

  6. [13]

    Motor neuroprosthesis implanted with neurointerventional surgery improves capacity for activities of daily living tasks in severe paralysis: first in-human experience

    Thomas J Oxley, Peter E Yoo, Gil S Rind, Stephen M Ronayne, C M Sarah Lee, Christin Bird, Victoria Hampshire, Rahul P Sharma, Andrew Morokoff, Daryl L Williams, Christopher MacIsaac, Mark E Howard, Lou Irving, Ivan Vrljic, Cameron Williams, Sam E John, Frank Weissenborn, Madel...

    2021

  7. [14]

    Brannigan, Adam Fry, Nicholas L

    Jamie F.M. Brannigan, Adam Fry, Nicholas L. Opie, Bruce C.V. Campbell, Peter J. Mitchell, and Thomas J. Oxley. Endovascular Brain-Computer Interfaces in Poststroke Paralysis. Stroke, 55(2):474–483, February 2024. ISSN 0039-2499, 1524-4628. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.037719. UR...

    2024 doi

  8. [15]

    Mandeville, Lijun Xu, Creed M

    Anqi Zhang, Emiri T. Mandeville, Lijun Xu, Creed M. Stary, Eng H. Lo, and Charles M. Lieber. Ultraflexible endovascular probes for brain recording through micrometer-scale vasculature. Science, 381(6655):306–312, July 2023. ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science.adh39...

    2023 doi

  9. [16]

    Starke, Tony Wang, Dale Ding, Christopher R

    Robert M. Starke, Tony Wang, Dale Ding, Christopher R. Durst, R. Webster Crowley, Nohra Chalouhi, David M. Hasan, Aaron S. Dumont, Pascal Jabbour, and Kenneth C. Liu. Endovascular Treatment of Venous Sinus Stenosis in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: Complications, Neurol...

    2015 doi

  10. [17]

    Soos, and Kunal Mahajan

    Kalgi Modi, Michael P. Soos, and Kunal Mahajan. Stent Thrombosis. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 2024. URL http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441908/

    2024

  11. [18]

    Kumar, Stepan Capek, Daniel R

    Sauson Soldozy, Steven Young, Jeyan S. Kumar, Stepan Capek, Daniel R. Felbaum, Walter C. Jean, Min S. Park, and Hasan R. Syed. A systematic review of endovascular stent-electrode arrays, a minimally invasive approach to brain-machine interfaces. Neurosurgical Focus, 49(1):E3, ...

    2020

  12. [19]

    Stirling, Matias I

    Rachel E. Stirling, Matias I. Maturana, Philippa J. Karoly, Ewan S. Nurse, Kate McCutcheon, David B. Grayden, Steven G. Ringo, John M. Heasman, Rohan J. Hoare, Alan Lai, Wendyl D’Souza, Udaya Seneviratne, Linda Seiderer, Karen J. McLean, Kristian J. Bulluss, Michael Murphy, Be...

    2021

  13. [20]

    Richardson, Mark Cook, George Kouvas, John M

    Jonas Duun-Henriksen, Maxime Baud, Mark P. Richardson, Mark Cook, George Kouvas, John M. Heasman, Daniel Friedman, Jukka Peltola, Ivan C. Zibrandtsen, and Troels W. Kjaer. A new era in electroencephalographic monitoring? Subscalp devices for ultra-long-term recordings. EPILEPS...

    2020 doi

  14. [21]

    Kjeldsen, Frantz R

    Sigge Weisdorf, Jonas Duun-Henriksen, Marianne J. Kjeldsen, Frantz R. Poulsen, Sirin W. Gangstad, and Troels W. Kjær. Ultra-long-term subcutaneous home monitoring of epilepsy—490 days of EEG from nine patients.Epilepsia, 60 (11):2204–2214, 2019. ISSN 0013-9580. doi: 10.1111/ep...

    2019 doi

  15. [22]

    Barlatey, George Kouvas, Aleksander Sobolewski, Andreas Nowacki, Claudio Pollo, and Maxime O

    Sabry L. Barlatey, George Kouvas, Aleksander Sobolewski, Andreas Nowacki, Claudio Pollo, and Maxime O. Baud. Designing next-generation subscalp devices for seizure monitoring: A systematic review and meta-analysis of established extracranial hardware. Epilepsy Research, 202:10...

    2024

  16. [23]

    Sheth, Fuad Z

    Zulfi Haneef, Kaiyuan Yang, Sameer A. Sheth, Fuad Z. Aloor, Behnaam Aazhang, Vaishnav Krishnan, and Cemal Karakas. Sub-scalp electroencephalog- raphy: A next-generation technique to study human neurophysiology. Clini- cal Neurophysiology, 141:77–87, 2022. ISSN 1388-2457. doi: ...

    2022 doi

  17. [24]

    Lin, Ding-Yu Fei, Xuedong Chen, and Ou Bai

    Dandan Huang, P. Lin, Ding-Yu Fei, Xuedong Chen, and Ou Bai. EEG-based online two-dimensional cursor control. In 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society , pages 4547–4550, REFERENCES 35 Minneapolis, MN, September 2009. IEEE....

    2009

  18. [25]

    A binary method for simple and accurate two-dimensional cursor control from EEG with minimal subject training

    Turan A Kayagil, Ou Bai, Craig S Henriquez, Peter Lin, Stephen J Furlani, Sherry Vorbach, and Mark Hallett. A binary method for simple and accurate two-dimensional cursor control from EEG with minimal subject training. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation , 6(1):14, ...

    2009 doi

  19. [26]

    Electroencephalographic (EEG) control of three-dimensional movement

    Dennis J McFarland, William A Sarnacki, and Jonathan R Wolpaw. Electroencephalographic (EEG) control of three-dimensional movement. Journal of Neural Engineering , 7(3):036007, June 2010. ISSN 1741-2560, 1741-

    2010

  20. [27]

    Littlejohn, Cheol Jun Cho, Jessie R

    Kaylo T. Littlejohn, Cheol Jun Cho, Jessie R. Liu, Alexander B. Silva, Bohan Yu, Vanessa R. Anderson, Cady M. Kurtz-Miott, Samantha Brosler, Anshul P. Kashyap, Irina P. Hallinan, Adit Shah, Adelyn Tu-Chan, Karunesh Ganguly, David A. Moses, Edward F. Chang, and Gopala K. Anuman...

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Bryan Young, John R

    G. Bryan Young, John R. Ives, Martin G. Chapman, and Seyed M. Mirsattari. A comparison of subdermal wire electrodes with collodion-applied disk electrodes in long-term EEG recordings in ICU. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117(6):1376– 1379, 2006. ISSN 1388-2457. doi: 10.1016/j.clin...

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    Mandic, Rasmus Elsborg Madsen, and Claus Bogh Juhl

    Jonas Duun-Henriksen, Troels Wesenberg Kjaer, David Looney, Mary Doreen Atkins, Jens Ahm Sørensen, Martin Rose, Danilo P. Mandic, Rasmus Elsborg Madsen, and Claus Bogh Juhl. EEG Signal Quality of a Subcutaneous Recording System Compared to Standard Surface Electrodes. Journal ...

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    Gangstad, Jonas Duun-Henriksen, Karina S

    Sigge Weisdorf, Sirin W. Gangstad, Jonas Duun-Henriksen, Karina S. S. Mosholt, and Troels W. Kjær. High similarity between EEG from subcutaneous and proximate scalp electrodes in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Journal of Neurophysiology, 120(3):1451–1460, 2018. ISSN 002...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Olson, Jeremiah D

    Jared D. Olson, Jeremiah D. Wander, Lise Johnson, Devapratim Sarma, Kurt Weaver, Edward J. Novotny, Jeffrey G. Ojemann, and Felix Darvas. Comparison of subdural and subgaleal recordings of cortical high-gamma activity in humans. Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of t...

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Mahoney, Po-Chen Liu, David B

    Timothy B. Mahoney, Po-Chen Liu, David B. Grayden, and Sam E. John. Comparison of Sub-Scalp EEG and Endovascular Stent-Electrode Array for Visual Evoked Potential Brain-Computer Interface. In 2023 45th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biolo...

    2023

  26. [34]

    K. Yang, L. Tong, J. Shu, N. Zhuang, B. Yan, and Y. Zeng. High Gamma Band EEG Closely Related to Emotion: Evidence From Functional Network. Front Hum Neurosci , 14:89, 2020. ISSN 1662-5161 (Print) 1662-5161. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00089. Type: Journal Article

    2020

  27. [35]

    Fifer, Guy Hotson, Brock A

    Matthew S. Fifer, Guy Hotson, Brock A. Wester, David P. McMullen, Yujing Wang, Matthew S. Johannes, Kapil D. Katyal, John B. Helder, Matthew P. Para, R. Jacob Vogelstein, William S. Anderson, Nitish V. Thakor, and Nathan E. Crone. Simultaneous Neural Control of Simple Reaching...

  28. [36]

    Fitzgerald and Brendon O

    Paul J. Fitzgerald and Brendon O. Watson. Gamma oscillations as a biomarker for major depression: an emerging topic. Translational Psychiatry, 8(1):177, REFERENCES 37 September 2018. ISSN 2158-3188. doi: 10.1038/s41398-018-0239-y. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-018-0239-y

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Sensory gating of auditory evoked and induced gamma band activity in intracranial recordings

    Peter Trautner, Timm Rosburg, Thomas Dietl, J¨ urgen Fell, OA Korzyukov, Martin Kurthen, Carlo Schaller, Christian Erich Elger, and Nash N Boutros. Sensory gating of auditory evoked and induced gamma band activity in intracranial recordings. Neuroimage, 32(2):790–798, 2006. do...

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    The many faces of the gamma band response to complex visual stimuli

    Jean-Philippe Lachaux, Nathalie George, Catherine Tallon-Baudry, Jacques Martinerie, Laurent Hugueville, Lorella Minotti, Philippe Kahane, and Bernard Renault. The many faces of the gamma band response to complex visual stimuli. NeuroImage, 25(2):491–501, 2005. ISSN 1053-8119....

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    Cortical dynamics of word recognition

    Nelly Mainy, Julien Jung, Monica Baciu, Philippe Kahane, Benjamin Schoendorff, Lorella Minotti, Dominique Hoffmann, Olivier Bertrand, and Jean- Philippe Lachaux. Cortical dynamics of word recognition. Human brain mapping, 29(11):1215–1230, 2008. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20457. Publish...

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    Optimal spacing of surface electrode arrays for brain–machine interface applications

    Marc W Slutzky, Luke R Jordan, Todd Krieg, Ming Chen, David J Mogul, and Lee E Miller. Optimal spacing of surface electrode arrays for brain–machine interface applications. Journal of Neural Engineering , 7(2):026004, April 2010. ISSN 1741-2560, 1741-2552. doi: 10.1088/1741-25...

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Robert Spitzer, Leonardo G

    A. Robert Spitzer, Leonardo G. Cohen, Judy Fabrikant, and Mark Hallett. A method for determining optimal interelectrode spacing for cerebral topographic mapping. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology , 72(4):355– 361, April 1989. ISSN 00134694. doi: 10.1016/0013-...

    1989

  34. [42]

    Srinivasan, P.L

    R. Srinivasan, P.L. Nunez, and R.B. Silberstein. Spatial filtering and neocortical dynamics: estimates of EEG coherence. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 45(7):814–826, July 1998. ISSN 00189294. doi: 10.1109/10.686789. URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/686789/

    1998 doi

  35. [43]

    Freeman, Mark D

    Walter J. Freeman, Mark D. Holmes, Brian C. Burke, and Sampsa Vanhatalo. Spatial spectra of scalp EEG and EMG from awake humans. Clinical REFERENCES 38 Neurophysiology, 114(6):1053–1068, June 2003. ISSN 13882457. doi: 10.1016/ S1388-2457(03)00045-2. URL https://linkinghub.else...

    2003

  36. [44]

    John, Nicholas L

    Sam E. John, Nicholas L. Opie, Yan T. Wong, Gil S. Rind, Stephen M. Ronayne, Giulia Gerboni, Sebastien H. Bauquier, Terence J. O’Brien, Clive N. May, David B. Grayden, and Thomas J. Oxley. Signal quality of simultaneously recorded endovascular, subdural and epidural signals ar...

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Spatial spectral analysis of human electrocorticograms including the alpha and gamma bands

    Walter J Freeman, Linda J Rogers, Mark D Holmes, and Daniel L Silbergeld. Spatial spectral analysis of human electrocorticograms including the alpha and gamma bands. Journal of Neuroscience Methods , 95(2):111–121, February

  38. [46]

    M. R. Nuwer. Localization of Motor Cortex with Median Nerve Somatosensory Evoked Potentials. In Johannes Schramm and Aage R. Møller, editors, Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring in Neurosurgery , pages 63–71. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991. ISBN 97...

    1991 doi

  39. [47]

    Ince, Kai J

    Leonhard Schreiner, Michael Jordan, Sebastian Sieghartsleitner, Christoph Kapeller, Harald Pretl, Kyousuke Kamada, Priscella Asman, Nuri F. Ince, Kai J. Miller, and Christoph Guger. Mapping of the central sulcus using non-invasive ultra-high-density brain recordings. Scientifi...

    2024 doi

  40. [49]

    John, Timothy J.H

    Sam E. John, Timothy J.H. Lovell, Nicholas L. Opie, Stefan Wilson, REFERENCES 39 Theodore C. Scordas, Yan T. Wong, Gil S. Rind, Stephen Ronayne, S´ ebastien H. Bauquier, Clive N. May, David B. Grayden, Terence J. O’Brien, and Thomas J. Oxley. The ovine motor cortex: A review o...

  41. [50]

    Brain–Computer In- terfaces: Principles and Practice

    Jonathan Wolpaw and Elizabeth Winter Wolpaw. Brain–Computer In- terfaces: Principles and Practice . Oxford University Press, January

  42. [51]

    Opie, Sam E

    Nicholas L. Opie, Sam E. John, Gil S. Rind, Stephen M. Ronayne, Yan T. Wong, Giulia Gerboni, Peter E. Yoo, Timothy J. H. Lovell, Theodore C. M. Scordas, Stefan L. Wilson, Anthony Dornom, Thomas Vale, Terence J. O’Brien, David B. Grayden, Clive N. May, and Thomas J. Oxley. Foca...

    2018

  43. [52]

    Oxley, Nicholas L

    Thomas J. Oxley, Nicholas L. Opie, Sam E. John, Gil S. Rind, Stephen M. Ronayne, Tracey L. Wheeler, Jack W. Judy, Alan J. McDonald, Anthony Dornom, Timothy J. H. Lovell, Christopher Steward, David J. Garrett, Bradford A. Moffat, Elaine H. Lui, Nawaf Yassi, Bruce C. V. Campbell...

    2016

  44. [53]

    Brian C. Ross. Mutual Information between Discrete and Continuous Data Sets. REFERENCES 40 PLoS ONE, 9(2):e87357, February 2014. ISSN 1932-6203. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0087357. URL https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087357

    2014 doi

  45. [54]

    Mutual Information, 2020

    John O’Toole, M. Mutual Information, 2020. URL https://github.com/ otoolej/mutual_info_kNN

    2020

  46. [55]

    Visual evoked potentials determine chronic signal quality in a stent-electrode endovascular neural interface

    G Gerboni, S E John, G S Rind, S M Ronayne, C N May, T J Oxley, D B Grayden, N L Opie, and Y T Wong. Visual evoked potentials determine chronic signal quality in a stent-electrode endovascular neural interface. Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express, 4(5):055018, August 2018...

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    Ravi Vakani and Dileep R. Nair. Electrocorticography and functional mapping. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology , volume 160, pages 313–327. Elsevier, 2019. ISBN 9780444640321. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-64032-1.00020-5. URL https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B978044464...

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    Leuthardt

    Gerwin Schalk and Eric C. Leuthardt. Brain-Computer Interfaces Using Electrocorticographic Signals. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 4:140– 154, 2011. ISSN 1937-3333, 1941-1189. doi: 10.1109/RBME.2011.2172408. URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6047564/

    2011

  49. [58]

    Brain–Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice, Chapter 7

    Jonathan Wolpaw and Elizabeth Winter Wolpaw. Brain–Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice, Chapter 7 . Oxford University Press, January

  50. [59]

    Pfurtscheller

    G. Pfurtscheller. Chapter 26 Spatiotemporal ERD/ERS patterns during voluntary movement and motor imagery. In Supplements to Clinical Neurophysiology, volume 53, pages 196–198. Elsevier, 2000. ISBN 978-0-444- 50499-9. doi: 10.1016/S1567-424X(09)70157-6. URL https://linkinghub. ...

    doi

  51. [60]

    Peter Mitchell, Sarah C. M. Lee, Peter E. Yoo, Andrew Morokoff, Rahul P. Sharma, Daryl L. Williams, Christopher MacIsaac, Mark E. Howard, Lou Irving, Ivan Vrljic, Cameron Williams, Steven Bush, Anna H. Balabanski, Katharine J. Drummond, Patricia Desmond, Douglas Weber, Timothy...

    2023

  52. [61]

    Electrocorticographic control of a prosthetic arm in paralyzed patients

    Takufumi Yanagisawa, Masayuki Hirata, Youichi Saitoh, Haruhiko Kishima, Kojiro Matsushita, Tetsu Goto, Ryohei Fukuma, Hiroshi Yokoi, Yukiyasu Kamitani, and Toshiki Yoshimine. Electrocorticographic control of a prosthetic arm in paralyzed patients. Annals of Neurology , 71(3):3...

  53. [62]

    Fast and accurate decoding of finger movements from ECoG through Riemannian features and modern machine learning techniques

    Lin Yao, Bingzhao Zhu, and Mahsa Shoaran. Fast and accurate decoding of finger movements from ECoG through Riemannian features and modern machine learning techniques. Journal of Neural Engineering , 19(1):016037, February 2022. ISSN 1741-2560, 1741-2552. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552...

    2022 doi

  54. [63]

    Decoding Individual Finger Movements from One Hand Using Human EEG Signals

    Ke Liao, Ran Xiao, Jania Gonzalez, and Lei Ding. Decoding Individual Finger Movements from One Hand Using Human EEG Signals. PLoS ONE , 9(1): e85192, January 2014. ISSN 1932-6203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085192. URL https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085192

    2014 doi

  55. [64]

    Torres-Garc ´ ıa, Luis Villase˜ nor-Pineda, and Maya Carrillo

    Luis Alfredo Moctezuma, Alejandro A. Torres-Garc ´ ıa, Luis Villase˜ nor-Pineda, and Maya Carrillo. Subjects identification using EEG-recorded imagined speech. Expert Systems with Applications , 118:201–208, March 2019. ISSN 09574174. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.10.004. URL https...

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    EEG-Based Subjects Identification Based on Biometrics of Imagined Speech Using EMD

    Luis Alfredo Moctezuma and Marta Molinas. EEG-Based Subjects Identification Based on Biometrics of Imagined Speech Using EMD. In Shouyi Wang, Vicky Yamamoto, Jianzhong Su, Yang Yang, Erick Jones, Leon Iasemidis, and Tom Mitchell, editors, Brain Informatics , volume 11309, page...

    2018 doi

  57. [66]

    doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388855

    ISBN 978-0-19-538885-5. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388855. 001.0001. URL http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780195388855.001.0001/acprof-9780195388855

  58. [67]

    Making a case for endovascular approaches for neural recording and stimulation

    Brianna Thielen, Huijing Xu, Tatsuhiro Fujii, Shivani D Rangwala, Wenxuan Jiang, Michelle Lin, Alexandra Kammen, Charles Liu, Pradeep Selvan, Dong Song, William J Mack, and Ellis Meng. Making a case for endovascular approaches for neural recording and stimulation. Journal of N...

    2023

  59. [68]

    Motor activity in gamma and high gamma bands recorded with a Stentrode from the human motor cortex in two people with ALS

    Kriti Kacker, Nikole Chetty, Ariel K Feldman, James Bennett, Peter E Yoo, Adam Fry, David Lacomis, Noam Y Harel, Raul G Nogueira, Shahram Majidi, Nicholas L Opie, Jennifer L Collinger, Thomas J Oxley, David F Putrino, and Douglas J Weber. Motor activity in gamma and high gamma...

    2025 doi

  60. [69]

    Wolpaw and Dennis J

    Jonathan R. Wolpaw and Dennis J. McFarland. Control of a two- dimensional movement signal by a noninvasive brain-computer interface in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(51):17849–17854, December 2004. ISSN 0027-8424, 1091-6490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0403...

    2004 doi

  61. [70]

    doi: 10.1002/ana.22613

    ISSN 0364-5134, 1531-8249. doi: 10.1002/ana.22613. URL https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.22613

    doi

  62. [71]

    Lee, Leonhard Schreiner, Seong-Hyeon Jo, Sebastian Sieghartsleitner, Michael Jordan, Harald Pretl, Christoph Guger, and Hyung-Soon Park

    Hyemin S. Lee, Leonhard Schreiner, Seong-Hyeon Jo, Sebastian Sieghartsleitner, Michael Jordan, Harald Pretl, Christoph Guger, and Hyung-Soon Park. Individual finger movement decoding using a novel ultra-high-density electroencephalography-based brain-computer interface system....

    2022

  63. [72]

    Miller, Dora Hermes, and Nathan P

    Kai J. Miller, Dora Hermes, and Nathan P. Staff. The current REFERENCES 43 state of electrocorticography-based brain–computer interfaces. Neuro- surgical Focus , 49(1):E2, July 2020. ISSN 1092-0684. doi: 10. 3171/2020.4.FOCUS20185. URL https://thejns.org/view/journals/ neurosu...

    2020

  64. [73]

    Metzger, Jessie R

    Sean L. Metzger, Jessie R. Liu, David A. Moses, Maximilian E. Dougherty, Margaret P. Seaton, Kaylo T. Littlejohn, Josh Chartier, Gopala K. Anumanchipalli, Adelyn Tu-Chan, Karunesh Ganguly, and Edward F. Chang. Generalizable spelling using a speech neuroprosthesis in an individ...

  65. [74]

    Silva, Kaylo T

    Alexander B. Silva, Kaylo T. Littlejohn, Jessie R. Liu, David A. Moses, and Edward F. Chang. The speech neuroprosthesis. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 25(7):473–492, July 2024. ISSN 1471-003X, 1471-0048. doi: 10.1038/s41583-024-00819-9. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ s415...

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    A State-of-the-Art Review of EEG-Based Imagined Speech Decoding

    Diego Lopez-Bernal, David Balderas, Pedro Ponce, and Arturo Molina. A State-of-the-Art Review of EEG-Based Imagined Speech Decoding. Frontiers REFERENCES 42 in Human Neuroscience , 16:867281, April 2022. ISSN 1662-5161. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.867281. URL https://www.frontiers...

    2022

  67. [76]

    Behavioural Dataset, 2025

    Timothy Mahoney. Behavioural Dataset, 2025. URL https://figshare. unimelb.edu.au/articles/dataset/Behavioural_Dataset/28836473/1

    2025

  68. [79]

    D. J. McFarland and J. R. Wolpaw. EEG-based brain–computer interfaces. Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering , 4:194–200, 2017. ISSN 2468-4511. doi: 10.1016/j.cobme.2017.11.004. Type: Journal Article

    2017 doi

  69. [85]

    SEP Stimulus Data, 2025

    Timothy Mahoney. SEP Stimulus Data, 2025. URL https://figshare. unimelb.edu.au/articles/dataset/SEP_Stimulus_Data/28836644/1

    2025

  70. [684]

    URL https://thejns.org/view/ journals/neurosurg-focus/49/1/article-pE3.xml

    doi: 10.3171/2020.4.FOCUS20186. URL https://thejns.org/view/ journals/neurosurg-focus/49/1/article-pE3.xml . REFERENCES 34

    2020 doi

  71. [2000]

    doi: 10.1016/S0165-0270(99)00160-0

    ISSN 01650270. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0270(99)00160-0. URL https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165027099001600

    doi

  72. [2014]

    doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2286955

    2013

  73. [2017]

    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.06.002

    ISSN 01497634. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.06.002. URL https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0149763417300726

    2017 doi

  74. [2022]

    doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33611-3

    ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33611-3. URL https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33611-3

    doi

  75. [2531]

    URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/6775293/

    doi: 10.1109/TBME.2014.2312397. URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/6775293/

    2014

  76. [2552]

    URL https://iopscience.iop

    doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/7/3/036007. URL https://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1088/1741-2560/7/3/036007

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.