To be correctly mastered, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) need an uninterrupted flow of feedback to the user. This feedback is usually delivered through the visual channel. Our aim was to explore the benefits of vibrotactile feedback during users' training and control of EEG-based BCI applications. A protocol for delivering vibrotactile feedback, including specific hardware and software arrangements, was specified. In three studies with 33 subjects (including 3 with spinal cord injury), we compared vibrotactile and visual feedback, addressing: (I) the feasibility of subjects' training to master their EEG rhythms using tactile feedback; (II) the compatibility of this form of feedback in presence of a visual distracter; (III) the performance in presence of a complex visual task on the same (visual) or different (tactile) sensory channel. The stimulation protocol we developed supports a general usage of the tactors; preliminary experimentations. All studies indicated that the vibrotactile channel can function as a valuable feedback modality with reliability comparable to the classical visual feedback. Advantages of using a vibrotactile feedback emerged when the visual channel was highly loaded by a complex task. In all experiments, vibrotactile feedback felt, after some training, more natural for both controls and SCI users.

Many offline studies have explored the feasibility of EEG potentials related to single limb movements for a brain-computer interface (BCI) control signal. However, only few functional online single-trial BCI systems have been reported. We investigated whether inexperienced subjects could control a BCI accurately by means of visually-cued left versus right index finger movements, performed every 2 s, after only a 20-min training period. Ten subjects tried to move a circle from the center to a target location at the left or right side of the computer screen by moving their left or right index finger. The classifier was updated after each trial using the correct class labels, enabling up-to-date feedback to the subjects throughout the training. Therefore, a separate data collection session for optimizing the classification algorithm was not needed. When the performance of the BCI was tested, the classifier was not updated. Seven of the ten subjects were able to control the BCI well. They could choose the correct target in 84%-100% of the cases, 3.5-7.7 times a minute. Their mean single trial classification rate was 80% and bit rate 10 bits/min. These results encourage the development of BCIs for paralyzed persons based on detection of single-trial movement attempts.

We characterized features of magnetoencephalographic (MEG) and electroencephalographic (EEG) signals generated in the sensorimotor cortex of three tetraplegics attempting index finger movements. Single MEG and EEG trials were classified offline into two classes using two different classifiers, a batch trained classifier and a dynamic classifier. Classification accuracies obtained with dynamic classifier were better, at 75%, 89%, and 91% in different subjects, when features were in the 0.5-3.0-Hz frequency band. Classification accuracies of EEG and MEG did not differ.

Movement-disabled persons typically require a long practice time to learn how to use a brain-computer interface (BCI). Our aim was to develop a BCI which tetraplegic subjects could control only in 30 minutes. Six such subjects (level of injury C4-C5) operated a 6-channel EEG BCI. The task was to move a circle from the centre of the computer screen to its right or left side by attempting visually triggered right- or left-hand movements. During the training periods, the classifier was adapted to the user's EEG activity after each movement attempt in a supervised manner. Feedback of the performance was given immediately after starting the BCI use. Within the time limit, three subjects learned to control the BCI. We believe that fast initial learning is an important factor that increases motivation and willingness to use BCIs. We have previously tested a similar single-trial classification approach in healthy subjects. Our new results show that methods developed and tested with healthy subjects do not necessarily work as well as with motor-disabled patients. Therefore, it is important to use motor-disabled persons as subjects in BCI development.