“…The motor imagery task they employed, which the authors claim to have developed as 'novel', involves imagination of hand and foot movement and has in fact been used for over two decades in both basic research and in clinical research involving brain-computer interfaces in patients with motor and neuromuscular disorders (Kalcher et al, 1996;McFarland et al, 1997McFarland et al, , 2000Müller-Putz et al, 2005;Neuper et al, 2003;Penny et al, 2000;Pfurtscheller et al, 1993Pfurtscheller et al, , 2000Scherer et al, 2004;Wolpaw et al, 1991; for reviews see e.g., Neuper and Pfurtscheller, 1999;Neuper et al, 2006a,b;Wolpaw et al, 2002). Recently, a debate has arisen over the statistical methods employed by Cruse et al in a re-analysis of the study's data by Goldfine et al (2013) which suggests that Cruse et al's methods violate statistical assumptions and are biased towards falsely identifying awareness in VS patients. However Cruse et al's (2013) rebuttal argues that Goldfine and colleagues' methods are unsuitable for the data and equally error-prone in the opposite direction, making detection of awareness unlikely not only in patients, but also in a majority of healthy controls.…”